Epstein Secrets

ourt, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton

red on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 9 of 10 SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] /s/ Adam D. Horowitz 10 C

hn Hopkins Univ. Applied Physical Lab, 171 F.RD. 179 (D. Md. 1997) (looking at both Rule 26 and Rule 412 in resolving discovery motion); Sanchez v. Zabihi, 166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996) (explaining that “[a]lthough the present motion arises in the context of discovery under Rule 26, the Court must rem

ourt, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton

Docket 05/06/2009 Page 8 of 9 - - 9 SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] /s/ Adam D. Horowitz Case

ohn Hopkins Univ. Applied Physical Lab, 171 F.RD. 179 (D. Md. 1997) (looking at both Rule 26 and Rule 412 in resolving discovery motion); Sanchez v. Zabihi, 166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996) (explaining that “[a]lthough the present motion arises in the context Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 93 Entered

District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critt

ourt, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critt

e 412 in resolving discovery motion); Sanchez v. Zabihi, 166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996) (explaining that “

Entered on FLSD Docket 05'06'2009 Page 10 of 10 SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] /s/ Adam D. Horowitz 10 EFTA00222180

ct Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton,

ohn Hopkins Univ. Applied Physical Lab, 171 F.RD. 179 (D. Md. 1997) (looking at both Rule 26 and Rule 412 in resolving discovery motion); Sanchez'. Zabihi, 166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996) (explaining that la]lthough the present motion arises in the context of discovery under Rule 26, the Court must rema