Epstein Secrets

Six, to-wit: The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, inquiring in and for the body of said County of Palm Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, in the Circuit and State aforesaid, COUNT ONE FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION on or about or between t

ion For Time Certain Based On Parallel Civil And Criminal Proceedinas With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby moves this Court for the entry of an order staying or continuing this action for a time certain

attorney for JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 3. I represented Mr. EPSTEIN in the negotiation of and entering into a Non-Pr

6. In the instant case, the privilege applies as Defendant EPSTEIN "has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a

of Palm Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, i

of Palm Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, in

tance where "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976). In explaining the application of the privilege, the Supr

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

ing assertions of fact or belief because the creation of those documents was not `compelled' within the meaning of the privilege." United States v. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Accordingly, a party cannot avoid discovery merely because demanded documents contain incriminating evidence, "whether written by

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

ing assertions of fact or belief because the creation of those documents was not `compelled' within the meaning of the privilege." United States v. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Accordingly, a party cannot avoid discovery merely because demanded documents contain incriminating evidence, "whether written by