Epstein Secrets

due by 5/29/2009), MOTION to identify jane doe #102 in the third-party subpoenas for purposes of discovery, with incorporated memorandum of law by Jeffrey Epstein.(see docket entry 5 for image) (tas) (Entered: 05/12/2009) https://eef.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.p17825839498761356-L_801 0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA001

09-80656-CIV-Ryskamp JANE DOE No. 102, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AND EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE #102 IN THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE #102 IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOS

erve so Epstein can defend this case. In support, Mr. Epstein states as follows: EFTA00175214 • Case 9:09-c

10/03/2008 4 r 82.8 KB ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE Executed as to 2 Summons Issued, 1 Complaint Acknowledgement filed by Jane Doe No. 7. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/03/2008) 10/03/2008 5 fi 26.1 Ica NOTICE of Striking 4 Acknowledgment of Service filed by Jane Doe No. 7 by Jane Doe No. 7 (Her

175301 CM/Eg - Live Database - flsd Page 4 of 7 05/20/2009 18 n NOTICE by of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to Defendant, Jeey Epstein's Motion to Compel And/Or Identify in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identify . in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, Or, Altern

7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO

ement with the United States Attorney's Office to not contest liability for claims brought exclusively 'See also Bray & Gillespie Management LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4826115, 1 (M.D. Fla. 2008) — "Wile Court 'may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial sy

009 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80469 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO & MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMI

T COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80469 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO & MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

I, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO & MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTI

69 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S REPLY T

ement with the United States Attorney's Office to not contest liability for claims brought exclusively 'See also Bray & Gillespie Management LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co. 2008 WL 4826115, 1 (M.D. Fla. 2008) — "[t]he Court 'may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial sy

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND SUPPORTINGMEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, by and

UCTION Edwards's Motion to Strike is based solely upon his erroneous argument that this Court's consideration of the probable cause issue raised in Epstein's Motion for Summary Tonga Haddad. P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fon Lauderdale, FL 33301. EFTA00808559 Judgment is batted by the law of the case doc

IRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. BRADL

or judicial proceeding . . ."). Accordingly, Edwards's Motion to Strike should be denied on the grounds of both the law of the case and estoppel. B. Epstein Did Not "Actually Present" to the Fourth District Court of Appeal the Issue of Probable Cause The positions Edwards now takes in his Motion to Stri

PROSECUTION (App. 32, 41) (original emphasis). The footnote in question did not, and could not, raise a point on appeal. See Simkins Ind., Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 714 So. 2d 1092, 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) ("an argument in a footnote does not elevate the matter to a point on appeal."); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

eepers, Inc., Respondent ALAN W. KORNSERG DANIEL J. KRAMER 2AVID K. LAKTIONIR TIOTHIN P LAMB* MOON . Lang; DANIEL4 kgr•ELL XIAO'YLI R • LIU JEFFREY MARELL MARCO MASOTTI EDWIN S. MAYNARD DAVID W. MAYO ELIZABETH R. MCCOLM MARK I F. MENDELSOHN • SY S. MYERSON J MN E NATHAN NE NYARADY

L L REISNER WALTER G. RICCIARIM WALTER RIEMAN RICHARD A. ROI1N ANDREW N ITO NIIRG J ROTHEN•ERG JACQUELINE P RAPHAEL M RUSSO JE CCCCC D. SA EPSTEIN JEFFREY SARROSAMUELS rt KENNETH MNIMITAEIDER ROBERT •. SCHUMER JAMES H. SCHWAB ./Q14N M. SCOTT STEPHEN J. IMSHAK DAVID . MOSES •ILVERMAN

G J ROTHEN•ERG JACQUELINE P RAPHAEL M RUSSO JE CCCCC D. SA EPSTEIN JEFFREY SARROSAMUELS rt KE

amounts as the General Partner shall determine." Mr. Epstein concedes he did not read the LPA prior to investi

tomotive Inc. v.. Paso Corp., 4 Extrinsic evidence is always admissible to determine whether a contract was negotiated. See ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., --- A.3d ---, 2011 WL 1599621, at *8 (Del. Apr. 28, 2011) (refusing to apply contra proferentem before consideration of extrinsic evidence for the

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO: DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND SUPPORTINGMEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respect

49 Introduction Edwards' motion to strike is based solely upon his argument that this Court's consideration of the probable cause issue raised in Epstein's motion for summary judgment is barred by the law of the case doctrine. Edwards argues that the probable cause issue was raised by Epstein as a po

IRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. BRADL

ON (App. *Ans Brf. at I, 7) (original emphasis). The footnote in question did not and could not raise a point on appeal. See Simkins Ind., Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 714 So. 2d 1092, 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (an argument in a footnote does not elevate the matter to a point on appeal."); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.