Epstein Secrets

on Motion Page 23 of 24 Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 ounse o

-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfel

the assertion of the fifth amendment does not substitute for evidence needed to meet the burden of production")• Eagle Hospital Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298, 1304 (11th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that "dismissal following the assertion of the Fifth Amendment violates the Constitution where th

million bond to secure any potential judgment that Jane Doe might obtain in this case. DATED July 23, 2009 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, Flo

o provide some sort of independent evidence to obtain an adverse inference.1 The other case cited by Epstein -- Eagle Hospital Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2009) -- is likewise unavailing. There, a defendant presented an affidavit to the district court that attached attorney-

ion Motion Page 23 of24 Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite

the assertion of the fifth amendment does not substitute for evidence needed to meet the burden of production"); Eagle Hospital Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298, 1304 (11th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that "dismissal following the assertion of the Fifth Amendment violates the Constitution where th

t nor pages reflecting the earlier testimony, are included in the exhibit.) M. is another anonymous plaintiff who is suing Epstein and is apparently Edwards' client. Edwards Mitt 11 I I.24. She is also a co- defendant with Edwards in Epstein's racketeering and fraud suit against both Edwards and M. as wel

. 19 E & J Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Servs.. Inc.. 33 Media L. Rep. 1413 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 2 iii EFTA00728011 Eagle Hosp. Physicians. LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2009) 7 Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., 194 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999) 2, 3 Hill v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 124 F.2d 104

t nor pages reflecting the earlier testimony, are included in the exhibit.) M. is another anonymous plaintiff who is suing Epstein and is apparently Edwards' client. Edwards Mitt 11 I I.24. She is also a co- defendant with Edwards in Epstein's racketeering and fraud suit against both Edwards and M. as wel

. 19 E & J Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Servs.. Inc.. 33 Media L. Rep. 1413 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 2 iii EFTA00207334 Eagle Hosp. Physicians. LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2009) 7 Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., 194 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999) 2, 3 Hill v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 124 F.2d 104