Epstein Secrets

lows for the discovery sought in Sections II. a-g above and in Defendant's Motion to Identify. See also Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26; Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978); Dunbar v. U.S., 502 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1974); Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 200); Fed.R.Civ.Pr

ing Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this £ day of !f,l,L( , 2009 u . CRITTON, JR., ESQ. oridaBarNo. 224162 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/8

may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). The correspondence w

Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell cassellp@b

t bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). The correspondence with the government agencies may well point Jane Doe in the direction of admissible evidence, and th

aw.com Isidro Manual Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsberg@p

y v. Palm Beach Tours & trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-08 (1947); Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). In Oppenheimer, the Supreme Court discussed the concept of relevance in relation to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) and noted tha

tf Order, and for such other and further relief as this court By _ __,f-------c;,.LC.--,,<-------- ROBER . RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar #224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERT. Y that a true copy of the foregoing was being served this day on all counsel of

hat bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). Discovery is not limited to the issues raised by the pleadings because 'discovery itself is designed to help define and

e No. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB Page 14 of 14 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP (561) 515-31 ax By: R D. Critton, Jr. orida Bar #224162 Michael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00723232 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEA

lows for the discovery sought in Sections II. a-g above and in Defendant's Motion to Identify. See also Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26; Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978); Dunbar v. U.S., 502 F.2d 206 (516 Cir. 1974); Rossbach v. Rundle 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 200); Fed.R.Civ.Pro

ing Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this L day ofd 2009 Respectfully submitted, R . CRITTON, JR., ESQ. orida Bar No. 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE. ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 BURMAN, CRHTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN Phone 17 EFTA00725757 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) Certificate of Ser

la. 1966). It is not enough for the opposing party merely to assert that an issue of fact does exist. Fisel v. Wynns, 667 So.2d 761, 764 (Fla.1996); Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368, 370 (F1a.1979) (same). Moreover, it is well-recognized that the non-moving party faced with a summary judgment motion su

aintiff's position is that the parties have already complied with the mediation requirements. By: s/Robert D. Critton, Jr. Robert D. Critton, Jr. Michael J. Pike Attorneys for Defendant Epstein EFTA00725996 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 168 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2010 Page 4 of 4 Doe v. Epstein

ard in West Palm Beach Florida. My name is Stan Sanders. I'm the vidcographer representing Visual Eviden

NG, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN BY: BRADLEY EDWARDS, ESQ. ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN: BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP BY: MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. ON BEHALF OF OTHER PLAINTIFFS IN RELATED CASES: MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. 305.931.2200 [email protected] BY: STUART S. MERMELSTE

n. 16, 1990. Defendant who allegedly breached nonprosecu- lion agreement moved to dismiss indictment or to suppress statements. The District Court, Sanders, Chief Judge, held that: (I) defendant, who refused to cooperate by failing to meet with Government representatives, failing to testify before gra

rict Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Robert D. Critton, Esq. Isidro Manual Garcia Innle ' Katherine Warthen ell Michael James Pike Paul G Cassell Richard Horace Willits Robert C. Josefsberg Adam D. Horowitz Stuart S Mermelstein William J. Realer 11 EFTA00182843 Case 5:0