Epstein Secrets

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

Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintif

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

TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintif

that 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

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 2 of 22 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 6, CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRNJOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant

Austration Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 3340] (561) §20-871] Angust 31, 2007 DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Ms. In care of Bruce Lyons, Esq. Lyons and Sanders 600 Northeast 3rd Avenue Fort Landerdale,; FL 33304 Re: Grand Jury investigation—Confidential Dea i This letter is an invitation for you to testif

ourt for the purpose of initlating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.) DEFENDANTS JEFFREY EPSTEIN (a) PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NO. 3, ) (b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF PALM BEACH COUNTY (EXCEPT IN U.S, PLAINTIFF CASES) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFE

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

t 06/10/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 5, Plaintiff, JEFFREY