Epstein Secrets

ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS v. HEARING REQUESTED Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO HIS MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA Mr. Epstein respectfully requests that he be permitted to be heard on his Motio

WS v. HEARING REQUESTED Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO HIS MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA Mr. Epstein respectfully requests that he be permitted to be heard on his Motion to Quash. Far from being an "important witness," as plaintiff asserts, Jeffrey

HEARING REQUESTED Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO HIS MO

RESPONSE TO HIS MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA Mr. Epstein respectfully requests that he be permitted to be

so that she can obtain adverse inferences against defendant Maxwell. Response at 7-8. As Mr. Epstein 5 EFTA00589514 has already contended in his Motion to Quash, the adverse inference issues can be decided by the Court based on Mr. Epstein's deposition testimony, and nothing will be added to the inquiry by

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff Case No v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO HIS MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA Far from being an "important witness," as plaintiff asserts, Jeffrey Epstein wo

he jury. Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any reason which withstands scrutiny as to why it would further the interests of justice for Mr. Epstein to be compelled to appear personally to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. Indeed, the weakness of plaintiff's arguments provides additional com

tiff Case No v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO HIS MO

hy it would further the interests of justice for Mr. Epstein to be compelled to appear personally to assert hi

appear personally so that she can obtain adverse inferences against defendant Maxwell. Response at 7-8. As Mr. Epstein has already contended in his Motion to Quash, the adverse inference issues can be decided by the Court based on Mr. Epstein's deposition testimony, and nothing will be added to the inquiry by

15-000072 Plaintiff(s), JUDGE: LYNCH v. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. I MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER DENYING NON- PARTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), a non-party to this action, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant t

nt. I MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER DENYING NON- PARTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), a non-party to this action, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.530 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby mo

DERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER DENYING NON- PARTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA Jeffrey Epste

a. 1st DCA 2004). In the case at hand, the Subpoena Duces Tecum with which Epstein was served, which was attached as Exhibit B to Epstein's initial Motion to Quash, states thereon that it is "to be served at an alternate location." Ostensibly, Edwards was well aware at the time he had Epstein court- ordered to