Epstein Secrets

Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment privileges afforded him under the United States Constitution. Mr. Kuvin also knew an order was issued in the related Federal Court proceedings sustaining Epstein's 5th Amendment privilege as to questions that, if answered, EFTA00728127 v. stein ase No. 2008CA037319XXXXMBAB

Page 9 of 11 if the plaintiff has a substantial privacy interest that outweighs the presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. Id., citing, Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 (11th Cir. 1992)(requiring complaint to include the names of the parties serves more than administrative convenience, it protects

t four digits), but agreed that the subpoenas filed with the clerk would be redacted. Several attorneys agreed to this procedure in those cases. In Federal Court, subpoenas are not filed with the clerk. Thus, in this matter, the undersigned offered to serve the third-party subpoenas with plaintiffs full name

g the legitimate interests of either party. 6 EFTA00221215 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 7 of 12 Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d at 323. Plaintiff does not fall under any of the factors. Moreover, even if she did meet one of the factors, "[t]he fact that [a] Doe [Pl

t four digits), but agreed that the subpoenas filed with the clerk would be redacted. Several attorneys agreed to this procedure in those cases. In Federal Court, subpoenas are not filed with the clerk. Thus, in this matter, the undersigned offered to serve the third-party subpoenas with plaintiff's full nam

6 of 11 decide if the plaintiff has a substantial privacy interest that outweighs the presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. Id., citing, Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 (11" Cir. 1992)(requiring complaint to include the names of the parties serves more than administrative convenience, it protects

/2009 Page 5 of 12 agreed that the subpoenas filed with the clerk would be redacted. Several attorneys agreed to this procedure in those cases. In Federal Court, subpoenas are not filed with the clerk. Thus, In this matter, the undersigned offered to serve the third-party subpoenas with plaintiff's full nam

bstantial privacy interests JANE DOE has must outweigh the customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness to judicial proceedings. Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d at 323; Doe v. Berostron, 2009 WL 528623 (C.A.9(Or.))(denying request to proceed anonymously in civil action by Plaintiff where Plaintiff