Epstein Secrets

ES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON CAROLYN MARGARET ANDRIANO Plaintiff, V. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney will take the deposition duces tecum of: DEPONENT Sus

brucereinhartlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen .=__,;;=-------- ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. F

a legally cognizable right of action"), on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d

d scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Am. Compl. ¶ 11. Upon arrival at Defendant’s mansion, the underage victim would be introduced to Sarah Kellen, Defendant’s assistant, who gathered the girl’s personal information, including her name and telephone number. Id. Kellen would then bring the girl

uld be introduced to Sarah Kellen, Defendant’s assistant, who gathered the girl’s personal information, including her name and telephone number. Id. Kellen would then bring the girl up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. Id. There were photog

entitlement to relief, and the statement must “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 54 Entered o

d scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Am. Compl. ¶ 11. Upon arrival at Defendant's mansion, the underage victim would be introduced to Sarah Kellen, Defendant's assistant, who gathered the girl's personal information, including her name and telephone number. Id. Kellen would then bring the girl

ld be introduced to Sarah Kellen, Defendant's assistant, who gathered the girl's personal information, including her name and telephone number. Id. Kellen would then bring the girl up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. Id. There were photogr

e on its face."). As a general matter, I am loath to assume that the Supreme Court circumvented the normal channels for amending the Federal Rules. Swierkiewicz I Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 515 (2002) ("A requirement of greater specificity for particular claims is a result that must be obtained by the process of

d scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Am. Compl. ¶ 11. Upon arrival at Defendant's mansion, the underage victim would be introduced to Sarah Kellen, Defendant's assistant, who gathered the girl's personal information, including her name and telephone number. Id. Kellen would then bring the girl

ld be introduced to Sarah Kellen, Defendant's assistant, who gathered the girl's personal information, including her name and telephone number. Id. Kellen would then bring the girl up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. Id. There were photogr

e on its face."). As a general matter, I am loath to assume that the Supreme Court circumvented the normal channels for amending the Federal Rules. Swierkiewicz I Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 515 (2002) ("A requirement of greater specificity for particular claims is a result that must be obtained by the process of

0312010 Page 5 of 10 reveals that Plaintiff alleges with whom Defendant conspired, stating that he "conspired with others, including his assistants Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova, to further commit these acts and to avoid police detection." See ¶ 15. Additionally, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges the identi

ired with others, including his assistants Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova, to further commit these act

ot contain enough information to allow a responsive pleading to be framed, the proper motion to be filed is a motion for a more definite statement. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Sisk v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dep't 644 F.2d 1056, 1059 (5' Cir. 1981)) Courts typically grant motions