Epstein Secrets

2009 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-8

I. Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 filed a Motion for Protective Order on July 29, 2009 (DE 226). That Motion concerns the acts and conduct of Defendant Epstein's investigators in interviewing nonparties. 2. Since the filing of Plaintiffs' Motion, Defendant's investigators have continued aggressively to c

26). That Motion concerns the acts and conduct of Defendant Epstein's investigators in interviewing nonparties. 2.

NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.:

, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file this Request for Emergency Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order, pursuant to S.D.F1a.L.R. 7.1(E), and state as follows: I. Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 filed a Motion for Protective Order on July 29, 2009 (DE 226). That Motion concerns the

8 Docket Text: NOTICE of Striking [523] MOTION for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff Jane Doe's Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment and Certification of Having Conferred Pursuant to S.D. Ha. L.R. 7.1.A.3 filed by Jane Doe No. 103 Notice to Strike (D

in Support of Plaintiff Jane Doe's Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment and Certification

Garcia Jack Alan Goldberger Jack Patrick Hill Jeffrey Marc Herman Katherine Warthen Ezell EFTA0020726

rt of Plaintiff Jane Doe's Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment and Certification of Having Conferred Pursuant to S.D. Ha. L.R. 7.1.A.3 filed by Jane Doe No. 103 Notice to Strike (DE 523) by Jane Doe No. 103 (Ezell, Katherine) 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Notice has been electronically

y and through JANE DOE's FATHER as parent and natural guardian, and JANE DOE's FATHER, and JANE DOE's STEPMOTHER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING JANE DOE NO. 1 REACHING AGE OF MAJORITY Plaintiffs

PMOTHER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OP

OE's STEPMOTHER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF L

d should be stricken or denied for the following reasons: I. It fails to include or be accompanied by a memorandum of law, in violation of S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.I (A)(1). This failure is particularly glaring here, as there is no obvious or apparent legal basis for the stay sought by Jane Doe's Mother, and

87 Loftus, E.F. (1994) Tricked by memory. In J. Jeffrey and G. Edwall (Eds). Memory and History: Essays

itness testimony: Constructive processes in human memory. In Advances in Psychology (Vol.1). Villanova, PA: ProScientia, Inc. Loftus, E.F. & Beach, L.R. (1982). Human inference and judgment: Is the glass half empty or half full? Stanford Law Review, 34, 901-918. 1983 Loftus, E.F. (1983). Misfortune