Epstein Secrets

80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80119, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Protective Order and Objection to Disclosure of Certain Documents (D.E. #214). For the following reasons said Motion is granted in part

intiffs were provided in the underlying Doe I. Epstein case. Specifically, the Joint Stipulation provides that Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagree whether certain correspondence, defined by the parties as "correspondence and documents (including content thereof) between Epstein's atto

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 0

t Complaint procedure (and in connection with this procedure disseminate the material to the media), and in a pending state court proceeding styled Epsteinil. Edwards, No. 502009 CA040800XXXXMB AG, that Epstein initiated against Plaintiffs' Counsel Edwards, among others, alleging a conspiracy to use Epst

Court. 3 EFTA00206522 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 4 of 6 the Court (D.E. #209), and by virtue of the Final Judgment in which the District Court specifically retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement and Joint Stipulation (D.E. #211), t

80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80119, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Protective Order and Objection to Disclosure of Certain Documents (D.E. #214). For the following reasons said Motion is granted in part

intiffs were provided in the underlying Doe I. Epstein case. Specifically, the Joint Stipulation provides that Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagree whether certain correspondence, defined by the parties as "correspondence and documents (including content thereof) between Epstein's atto

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 0

t Complaint procedure (and in connection with this procedure disseminate the material to the media), and in a pending state court proceeding styled Epsteinil. Edwards, No. 502009 CA040800XXXXMB AG, that Epstein initiated against Plaintiffs' Counsel Edwards, among others, alleging a conspiracy to use Epst

Court. 3 EFTA00212195 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 4 of 6 the Court (D.E. #209), and by virtue of the Final Judgment in which the District Court specifically retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement and Joint Stipulation (D.E. #211), t

80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80119, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Protective Order and Objection to Disclosure of Certain Documents (D.E. #214). For the following reasons said Motion is granted in part

intiffs were provided in the underlying Doe I. Epstein case. Specifically, the Joint Stipulation provides that Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagree whether certain correspondence, defined by the parties as "correspondence and documents (including content thereof) between Epstein's atto

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 0

t Complaint procedure (and in connection with this procedure disseminate the material to the media), and in a pending state court proceeding styled Epsteinil. Edwards, No. 502009 CA040800XXXXMB AG, that Epstein initiated against Plaintiffs' Counsel Edwards, among others, alleging a conspiracy to use Epst

Court. 3 EFTA00222323 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 4 of 6 the Court (D.E. #209), and by virtue of the Final Judgment in which the District Court specifically retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement and Joint Stipulation (D.E. #211), t

80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80119, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Protective Order and Objection to Disclosure of Certain Documents (D.E. #214). For the following reasons said Motion is granted in part

ure efforts of Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' counsel to disclose or make public certain discovery that Plaintiffs were provided in the underlying Doe v. Epstein case. Specifically, the Joint Stipulation provides that Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagree whether certain correspondence, defin

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 0

Court. 3 EFTA00612478 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 4 of 6 the Court (D.E. #209), and by virtue of the Final Judgment in which the District Court specifically retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement and Joint Stipulation (D.E. #211), t

80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80119, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Protective Order and Objection to Disclosure of Certain Documents (D.E. #214). For the following reasons said Motion is granted in part

ure efforts of Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' counsel to disclose or make public certain discovery that Plaintiffs were provided in the underlying Doe v. Epstein case. Specifically, the Joint Stipulation provides that Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagree whether certain correspondence, defin

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 0

Court. 3 EFTA00615539 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 4 of 6 the Court (D.E. #209), and by virtue of the Final Judgment in which the District Court specifically retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement and Joint Stipulation (D.E. #211), t

15-000072 Plaintiff(s), JUDGE: LYNCH v. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. I MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER DENYING NON- PARTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), a non-party to this action, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant t

nt. I MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER DENYING NON- PARTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), a non-party to this action, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.530 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby mo

DERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER DENYING NON- PARTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA Jeffrey Epste

s in the instant case, unmistakably shows Epstein's legal address as the Virgin Islands. A copy of same is attached hereto as "Exhibit C." Moreover, the Final Judgment entered by Judge Hafele in the Epstein v. Edwards matter on May 27, 2014 provides Epstein's address as "6100 Red Hook Boulevard, Virgin Islands." A