Epstein Secrets

tion, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order is hereby GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED this day of June, 2009. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge Copies to all Counsel of Record EFTA00182851 Case 9:U8-cv-80119-KAM Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/200

RN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON VS. Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and De

Page 9 of 15 assault. See, e.g., Aware Woman Cir., 253 F.3d at 685 (abortion); ■ 213 F.R.D. at III (infection with hepatitis B); Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D.Pa.200 I) (sexual assault victim); Smith, 105 F.Supp.2d at 42 (sexual assault victim); WGA v. Priority Pharmacy, Inc., 184 F.R.D. 616, 61

F FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defen

Page 9 of 15 assault. See, e.g., Aware Woman Ctr., 253 F.3d at 685 (abortion); EW, 213 F.R.D. at 111 (infection with hepatitis B); Doe. Evans, 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D.Pa.2001) (sexual assault victim); Smith, 105 F.Supp.2d at 42 (sexual assault victim); WGAI Priority Pharmacy, Inc., 184 F.R.D. 616, 617 (

EFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CAS

the following case as supplemental authority in connection with the above referenced Motions to Compel and Replies thereto: 1. Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (ED. P.A. 2001) (denying protective order where alleged sexual assault victim did not demonstrate a serious specific injury and allowing Defen

EFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CAS

the following case as supplemental authority in connection with the above referenced Motions to Compel and Replies thereto: 1. Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (ED. P.A. 2001) (denying protective order where alleged sexual assault victim did not demonstrate a serious specific injury and allowing Defen

FFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CAS

KAM Document 149 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 7 of 13 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 7 must be shown with specificity. See Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D. P.A. 2001). Thus, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of persuasion. N. Plaintiffs fail to show good cause in that they have not clearl

Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 20 #281849/clw UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV- MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff(s), vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendant(s). NOTICE OF SERVING ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and thro

the following case as supplemental authority in connection with the above referenced Motions to Compel and Replies thereto: 1. Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D. P.A. 2001) (denying protective order where alleged sexual assault victim did not demonstrate a serious specific injury and allowing Defe