Epstein Secrets

, which has been consolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when

nsolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when the girls

requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein. Defendant has responded by asserting several obj

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 0

Accordingly, Epstein's objection to responding to these requests on the basis of his Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination is upheld and Plaintiffs Motion is denied. As noted previously, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination is accorded "liberal construction," Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 4

ocument 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MOT

oing was furnished VIA ECM TRANSMISSION to: Robert D. Critton, Esq. and Michael Pike, Esq., BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER & COLEMAN, Counsel for Defendant EPSTEIN, 515 N. Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 and to Bruce Reinhart, Esq., BRUCE REINHART, P.A., Counsel for Defendant , 250 S. Austral

., BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER & COLEMAN, Counsel for Defendant EPSTEIN, 515 N. Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, Flori

ISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469

nc. . Boulevard Burgers Corporation, 52 A.D. 3d 1150, 861 N.Y.S. 2d 808 (N.Y.S.C., Appellate Division, June 26, 2008). Defendant first argues that Plaintiffs Motion is defective because the Plaintiff did not timely file the Affidavit of Service. However, a delay in filing proof of service under CPLR 308 is mere

, which has been consolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when

nsolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when the girls

requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein. Defendant has responded by asserting several obj

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 0

Accordingly, Epstein's objection to responding to these requests on the basis of his Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination is upheld and Plaintiffs Motion is denied. As noted previously, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination is accorded liberal construction," Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 48

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

ogatories wherein she lists certain witness that may have knowledge regarding the facts and allegations alleged in her complaint. See page three of Plaintiffs Motion wherein she acknowledges that she allegedly brought two of the other Plaintiffs in related cases to Defendant's home. In particular, the response t