Document Mentions (3 shared documents)

EFTA00175717

3 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

09/23/2008 a ORDER denying as moot 31 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 9 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 9/23/08. (ir) (Entered: 09/23/2008) 09/25/2008 39 SCHEDULING REPORT- Rule 26(O. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/25/2008) https://ecf.flsd.uscou

e No. 3 v. Epstein Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Lead case: 2:flasaAhd Member case: (View Member

in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) by Jane Doe No. 6, Jane Doe No. 7, Jane Doe, Jane Doe No. 5, Jane Doe No. 4, Jane Doc No. 3. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al.(Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 05/21/2009) 05/22/2009 101 ORDER terminating (100) Motion for Exte

EFTA00175214_sub_003 - EFTA00175214_256

3 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

eep True Name in Sealed Envelope filed by Jane Doe, 2 MOTION to Proceed Anonymously filed by Jane Doe. Responses due by 10/15/2008. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 9/30/08. (ir) (Entered: 09/30/2008) 10/01/2008 10. r 459.6 KB MOTION FOR EXTENSTION OF TIME TO RESPOND to I Complaint Extension to Respond to

. https://e,ef.flsd.useourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.p17859999798355213-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175425 CM/ECE 'Live Database - flsd Page 11 of 12 Marra on 6/1/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 06/01/2009) 06/03/2009 77 r 160.9 KB Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 38 Amended Com

22 26. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, used a facility or means of interstate and/or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce Jane Doc No. 101, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and/or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal

EFTA00234804

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

OUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTE

respond in opposition to consolidating her case with other cases for discovery purposes. The Court should deny consolidation, without prejudice to Jane Doc No. 3 re-filing the motion with more specific information about what the consolidation would entail. As the Court is aware, there is currently a case