Epstein Secrets

, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, physicians, hospitals and treatment facilities. No. 9. (Not at issue.)' List all items in Jeffrey Epstein's possession in Palm Beach, Florida, at any time during the period of these interrogatories, which were used or intended to be used as sexual aids, s

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 TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, and RESPONSES TO 1st and 2nd PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND INCORPORATED MEMO

2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWE

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

name in an Indictment as victims of an offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255. Request No. 2.

lly, F.T.C. supra, at fn.4, citing United States v. Premises Located at Route 13 946 F.2d 749, 756 (11th Cir.1991) (citing Pervis v. State Farm and Cas. Co., 901 F.2d 944, 948 (11th Cir.1990)). See also S.E.C. v. Keith Group of Companies, Inc. 1998 WL 1670405 (S.D. Fla. 1998)("When a party is a defendan

rs The second group consists of The Palm Beach Post and The Palm Beach Daily News. These entities moved for limited intervention in order to oppose Jeffrey Epstein's motion for protective order that sought to require sealing all pleadings that attached certain documents disclosed in discovery (DE305). The distri

nd was based on the same grounds advanced by Attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz (see DE93). The district court granted the motion and allowed Epstein to seek a protective order (DEI 59). Epstein's motion for protective order (DE162) was denied (DEI 88), and Epstein appealed along with his attorney

einberg, and Jay Leflcowitz, who all represented Jeffrey Epstein in connection with a federal criminal inv

alternative, out-of court resolution of their dispute. The case that prompted the Court's inquiry during the status conference, State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Hood, 266 F.R.D. 135 (S.D. Miss. 2010) ("State Farm I"), is consistent with these Rules and cases. In State Farm 1, members of the press sought t

Source Document(s) 1 Source Document(s) IN RE: JEFFREY J. PROSSER, Debtor. NORTH SHORE REAL ESTATE CORP

at *96 (3d Cir. 2006). Before such a dismissal occurs, however, a district court must consider six factors outlined in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., For internal use only SDNY_GM_00057202 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.CON(F IDENTIAL DB-SDNY-0020026 EFTA_00I 67770 EFTA01295867 Page 8