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

4/13/2009 32 ENDORSED ORDER granting (73) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (66 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support in case 9:08

ed by counsel for the plaintiff in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages arising out of the defendant's alleged sexual abuse of her when she was a mino

endant's alleged sexual abuse of her when she was a minor. The subpoenas seek the production of "[ail' taped conversations between George Rush and Jeffrey Edward Epstein, including telephone recordings, all emails to and from Jeffrey Edward Epstein or someone representing themselves to be Jeffrey Epstein," and the t

a weekly columnist in the Daily News, that in the fall of 2009 he began to follow criminal and civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7, 2010, Ex. G) 11 1-2), and that in November of 2009 he was able to arrange a telephone interview of

outhern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plainti

d civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7,

Mr. Rush's interview of Mr. Epstein. (Fisten Aff., Apr. 23, 2010 [Real Party in Interest Jane Doe's Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. of Daily News, L.P., to Quash Subpoena, Ex. B] 1 3.) Mr. Rush paraphrased the interview relatively thoroughly. (Id. 1 7.) 4. As noted above, the present motion has been argued on the

ed by counsel for the plaintiff in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages arising out of the defendant's alleged sexual abuse of her when she was a mino

endant's alleged sexual abuse of her when she was a minor. The subpoenas seek the production of "(ail' taped conversations between George Rush and Jeffrey Edward Epstein, including telephone recordings, all emails to and from Jeffrey Edward Epstein or someone representing themselves to be Jeffrey Epstein," and the t

a weekly columnist in the Daily News, that in the fall of 2009 he began to follow criminal and civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7, 2010, Ex. G) 11 1-2), and that in November of 2009 he was able to arrange a telephone interview of

outhern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plainti

d civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7,

about Mr. Rush's interview of Mr. Epstein. (Fisten Aff., Apr. 23, 2010 [Real Party in Interest Jane Doe's Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena, Ex. B] 1 3.) Mr. Rush paraphrased the interview relatively thoroughly. (Id. 1 7.) 4. As noted above, the present motion has been argued on the

3)(United States District Court, S.D. Fl.); v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB)(Florida Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit). v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 502008CA028058XXXXMB ABXFlorida Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit). 3. In December 2009, Epstein brought a vendetta action against me

itution in Florida. Subsequently, Bradley James Edwards, a Florida lawyer, brought civil actions on behalf of several girls alleging molestation by Epstein while they were minors. Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, (08- 80893)(United States District Court, S.D. Fl.); E v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 502008CA

endant's alleged sexual abuse of her when she was a minor. The subpoenas seek the production of "(a)11 taped conversations between George Rush and Jeffrey Edward Epstein, including telephone recordings, all emails to and from Jeffrey Edward Epstein or someone representing themselves to be Jeffrey Epstein," and the t

n between George Rush, one of its reporters, and Jeffrey Epstein, and granting such other relief as the C

d civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7,

Mr. Rush's interview of Mr. Epstein. (Fisten Aff., Apr. 23, 2010 [Real Party in Interest Jane Doe's Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. of Daily News, L.P., to Quash Subpoena, Ex. B] 1 3.) Mr. Rush paraphrased the interview relatively thoroughly. (Id. 1 7.) 4. As noted above, the present motion has been argued on the

mmary judgment in the Ponzi Scheme Action. SJ Motion at 1 (Edwards "is entitled to summary judgment for all claims brought against him in Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein's Complaint" because "the evidence uncontrovertibly demonstrates the propriety of every aspect of Edwards' involvement in the prosecution of legitimat

alternative sources before it may be subpoenaed from any non-party in New York. In fact, Edwards concedes in his own Florida court filings that the Epstein interview is, at best, cumulative of "overwhelming evidence" he has already obtained from several alternative sources. Second, even if Edwards were

made of a confidential unpublished interview of Jeffrey Epstein. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In this ancillar

d not, publish the information imparted to me by Mr. Epstein during the interview. Rush Supp. Aft 17 (emphasi

sclosing brief portions of the Epstein interview to third parties (Balin Aff. Ex. K (Jane Doe's Response in Opposition to Motion of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena), at 6-13) — the same exact waiver argument he makes here. The federal District Court (McKenna, J.) did not accept Edwards' waiver argument; but, i

US District Court Civil Docket U.S. District - Florida Southern (West Palm Beach) 9:08cv8011 9 Doe v. Epstein This case was retrieved from the court on Wednesday, March 04, 2015 Date Filed: Assigned To: Referred To: Nature of suit: Cause: Lead Docket:

hments: # 1 Exhibit)(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 10/16/2009) 10/16/2009 353 RESPONSE in Opposition re 331 MOTION for Protective Order as to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's, Attendance at Plaintiff's Deposition and Notice of Incorporation of Notice of Reliance of Supplemental Authority (DE 324) filed by Jeffrey Epstein.

/08.(ir) (Entered: 02/08/2008) AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Jeffrey Epstein on May 7, 2008, filed by Jane Doe. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/22/2008) SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe. Jeffrey Epstein served on 5/7/2008, Answer due 5/27/2008. (lk) (Entered: 05/27/2008)

3/2009) 425 Defendant's MOTION Attend Mediation Defendant Epstein% Motion to Attend Mediation and Memorandum in Su

rt in case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM; granting (65) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (66 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support in case 9:08-

eval service. - OR - Call 1.866.540.8818. US District Court Civil Docket U.S. District - Fiorida Souther (West Palm Beach) 9:09cv80469 Doe II'. Epstein et al This case was retrieved from the court on Sunday, July 18, 2010 Date Filed: Assigned To: Referred To: Nature of suit: Cause: Lead Docket

(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 10/21/2009) 10/21/2009 365 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL of Motion by C.M.A. re 331 MOTION for Protective Order as to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's. Attendance at Plaintiff's Deposition filed by C.M.A. DOCKET CORRECTION SEE DE 363 FOR IMAGE (tp) (Entered: 10/22/2009) 10/21/2009 367 REPLY to R

r) (Entered: 04/21/2008) AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Jeffrey Epstein on May 7. 2008. filed by Jane Doe No. 4. (Herman. Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/22/2008) Plaintiff's MOTION for Entry of Default by Clerk Against Defendant by Jane Doe No. 4. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B. # 2

0/21/2009) RESPONSE/REPLY to 60 Amended Document Defendant Epstein's Answer & Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's F

. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 04/06/2009) ENDORSED ORDER granting 71 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re 66 MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support . Responses d

2009 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR PURPOSES

mmon and overlapping facts in these cases, there is no reason why a party witness cannot be questioned in a single sitting on all facts pertinent to Epstein. A protective order is therefore warranted in these cases so that each Plaintiff has her deposition taken only once. Conclusion Based on the foreg

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S REPLY MEMORANDU

PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, files this Reply Memorandum In Support of Motion for Protective Order, and to Quash Subpoena, and Motion to Consolidate for Purposes of Discovery, as follows: I. DEFENDANT FAILS TO SET FORTH ANY PREJUDICE OR CONFUSION THAT WOULD MILITATE