Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO_QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.3, MOTION

CT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO_QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.3, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PURPO

2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

9-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONS

each, FL 33401-5012 Co-Counsel for Defendant Jef•ey Epstein EFTA00729283 Page 7 Respectfully submitted,

. As such, consolidation in the instant matter is not warranted in that not all common issues of fact are present and the parties are not identical. Kelly v. Kelly, 911 F.Supp. 66 (N.D. NY 1996)(consolidation refused because it would only serve purpose of convenience of some witnesses, actions did not share al

'2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.3, MOTION

CT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.3, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PURPO

2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

9-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONS

. As such, consolidation in the instant matter is not warranted in that not all common issues of fact are present and the parties are not identical. Kelly v. Kelly, 911 F.Supp. 66 (N.D. NY 1996)(consolidation refused because it would only serve purpose of convenience of some witnesses, actions did not share al

ntiff, JANE DOE 3, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 33, hereby responds to Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff as follows: General Oblections 1. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Interrogatories to the extent that th

CT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.3. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PURPO

2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

9-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONS

. As such, consolidation in the instant matter is not warranted in that not all common issues of fact are present and the parties are not identical. Kelly v. Kelly, 911 F.Supp. 66 (N.D. NY 1996Xconsolidation refused because it would only serve purpose of convenience of some witnesses, actions did not share all

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO_QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.3, MOTION

CT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO_QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.3, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PURPO

2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

9-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONS

. As such, consolidation in the instant matter is not warranted in that not all common issues of fact are present and the parties are not identical. Kelly v. Kelly, 911 F.Supp. 66 (N.D. NY 1996)(consolidation refused because it would only serve purpose of convenience of some witnesses, actions did not share al