Epstein Secrets

-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2. Plaintiff JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related Cases: 08-80232,

09/17/2009 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2. Plaintiff JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related Cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 0940469, 09-80581, 09-80656, 0940802, 09-81092.

d as Exhibit 1. 5. Some 13 days later, counsel for Jane Doe No. 4 flied a motion for protective order on September 9, 2009 attempting to prohibit MrEpstein's presence at the deposition. The Defendant immediately filed a response (an Emergency Motion) on September II, 2009 requesting that the coon enter

been justified, however, under these circumstances, it was grandstanding and improper. In that the Plaintiff has stated that she voluntary went to JE's home 50 plus times without trauma until she filed a lawsuit, this brief visual encounter from a distance should not have resulted in the unilater

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 4 of 33 Page 4 the plaintiffs either directly or indirectly. However, there is no prohibition against Mr. F.pstein's attendance at a deposition where, as is reflected in the order, the communication wilt be made to the plaintiff solely through defense counsel wi

LORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACFI hereby Se that. On. day, hefoie me, an ACC* &if itithoiiiid to oaths and take ac/cnowledgmener, personally appeared Jeffrey E. Bpetein known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who wrimowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that

09-00419, 0940581, 0940656, 09-80802, 0941092. Defendant Epstein's Emergency Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Motion F

s the intent of the Court to give the Defendant, Mr. Epstein, and his attorney an opportunity to have this Co

-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2. Plaintiff JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related Cases: 08-80232, 0

records. See Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (news media have standing to challenge any closure order); Miami Herald Publ'a Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d I, 7 (Fla. 1982) (news media must be given an opportunity to be heard on question of closure). 09/12/2019 P CONFIDENTIAL Age

EY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND IDENTIFY JANE DOE NUMBERS 101 AND 102 IN THIRD PART

CASE NO.: 08-CV-8038I-MARRA/JOHNSON EFTA00182748 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 2 of 8 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 2 JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE

OHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 101 AND 10

v. Epstein Page 4 Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, ("Mr. Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, her

ICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff,

records. See Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers. Inc., 531 So. 2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (news media have standing to challenge any closure order); Miami Herald Publ'a Co. v. Lewis 426 So. 2d I, 7 (Fla. 1982) (news media must be given an opportunity to be heard on question of closure). EFTA00182785 08/05/2009 10:01

Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331585 EFTA_OO2O43 I I EFTA02729297 • IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 4D09-2554 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC., E.W., and B.B., Respondents. Pending in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and f

of two orders unsealing a non-prosecution agreement and its addendum (collectively the "NPA"), which are records of the trial court below. State v. Epstein, Case Nos. 06 CF9454AMB, 08 CF9381AMB. Petitioner was investigated by the State of Florida for felony solicitation of children for prostitution. (

FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 4D09-2554 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, PAL

rd parties" and identifies those third parties as Mr. Epstein's co- conspirators. (Petition at 15). Again, Mr.

rial; and 3. closure would be effective in protecting the rights of the accused, without being broader than necessary to accomplish this purpose. Miami Herald Publ'a Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1, 6 (Fla. 1982). This test, as well as the standard announced in Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc. 531 So. 2d 113 (F