Epstein Secrets

s. V. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DEFENDANT'S HEALTH CARE INFORMATION IN DISCOVERY A. Interrogatory at Issue "Interrogatory No. 8. Identify all of Jeffrey Epstein's health care providers in the past (10) ten years, including without limitation, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, physician,

to Plaintiff's discovery requests. - 1 - EFTA00728201 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 2 of 16 II. EPSTEIN'S BLANKET ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES IS INSUFFICIENT Defendant's response to each and every

cceptable). While Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege may be asserted in a

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPE

ame in an Indictment as victims of an offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255. Response: Defend

nst parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them"); Securities and Exhange Comm'n v. Graystone Nash, Inc., 25 F.3d 187, 190 (3d Cir. 1994) ("[t]he [defendant's] dilemma of choosing between complete silence and presenting a defense [in a civil case

IN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. JUDGE: HAFELE JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO BRADLEY EDWARDS'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO STRIKE THE JUNE 30.2017 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AS TO WHICU DISCOVE

JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AS TO WHICU DISCOVERY WAS WITHHELD UNDER CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files his Response to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards's ("Edwards") Motion in Limine

DICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Case No.

millions of dollars. Q. And trying to find out, Mr. Epstein, whether you have any evidence whatsoever that

and 6 generate cases. See Deposition of Jeffi•ey Epstein, p. 28; line13-p. 29; line 6. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q

erence was drawn, or not drawn, on a case-by-case basis under the microscope of the circumstances of that particular civil litigation." Id. (citing Graystone Nash, 25 F.3d at 192). The inference may not be drawn "unless there is a substantial need for the information and there is not another less burdensome w

s. V. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DEFENDANT'S HEALTH CARE INFORMATION IN DISCOVERY A. Interrogatory at Issue "Interrogatory No. 8. Identify all of Jeffrey Epstein's health care providers in the past (10) ten years, including without limitation, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, physician,

to Plaintiff's discovery requests. - 1 - EFTA00222502 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 2 of 16 II. EPSTEIN'S BLANKET ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES IS INSUFFICIENT Defendant's response to each and every

cceptable). While Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege may be asserted in a

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPE

nst parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them"); Securities and Exhange Comm'n v. Graystone Nash, Inc., 25 F.3d 187, 190 (3d Cir. 1994) ("[t]he [defendant's] dilemma of choosing between complete silence and presenting a defense [in a civil case