Epstein Secrets

"an express confidentiality provision." In opposing the Motion to Unseal the NPA that was filed by Jane Doe, you stated that you had informed Judge Marra of the confidentiality provision during an earlier telephonic status conference occurring on August 14, 2008 which "the United States was obligated

E DOE, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, vs. JUNE 12, 2009 7 8 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 9 Defendant. 10 11 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: 13 14 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. Mermelstein & Horowitz 15 18205 Biscayne Bou

ed by Jane Doe, you stated that you had informed Judge Marra of the confidentiality provision during an earlie

Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case today. Even

District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Doe v. Epstein et al Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson ' Case in other court: 15th Judicial Circuit, 50 2008 CA 006596 Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question

e v. Epstein et al Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson

back to state court if any of the properly joined parties in interest are citizens of the state in which the suit was filed. See Lincoln Prop. Co.'. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 606, 613, 163 L.Ed.2d 415 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)). Such a remand is the necessary corollary of a federal distri

COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: JANE DOE, a/k/a JANE DOE #1,

Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case today. Even

THERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, a/k/a, JANE DOE NO. I, Plain

back to state court if any of the properly joined parties in interest are citizens of the state in which the suit was filed. See Lincoln Prop. Co.' Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 606, 613, 163 L.Ed.2d 415 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)). Such a remand is the necessary corollary of a federal distri

COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: JANE DOE, a/k/a JANE DOE N1,

Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case today. Even

COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: JANE DOE, aik/a JANE DOE #1,

f Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co.'. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case today. Even

COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: JANE DOE, a/k/a JANE DOE #1,

Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case today. Even