1 UNITED STATES 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. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2009

Page 1 of 5 2 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 6, CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2009

Page 2 of 5 3 Defendants. ____________________________________/ DOE II, CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 102 CASE NO.: 09- 80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ AMENDED ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Agreed Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File a Reply to Epstein’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2009

Page 3 of 5 4 Protective Order Re: Treatment Records and Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to Epstein’s Motion to Strike C.M.A.’s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory Damages (D.E. #234 in 08-80119). For the following reasons said Motion is granted in part and deferred in part as follows. By this Motion Plaintiff seeks two distinct forms of relief each of which, due to the nature of the relief sought, requires a ruling by two different judges, the District Judge (regarding extension of time relative to filing response to Epstein’s Motion to Strike C.M.A.’s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely) and the Magistrate Judge (regarding extension of time relative to filing reply in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order). The consolidation of several motions into one pleading is an accepted practice in this district. However, where the relief sought in the motions requires rulings by two different judges assigned to the case, in this instance a district judge and a magistrate judge, the practice is frowned upon as it results in a waste of judicial resources and creates general confusion in the court file. The Court recognizes that in this instance, where Plaintiff has simply reacted to a pleading filed by Defendant, Plaintiff had no choice but to frame the Motion as she did. This is why the practice of lumping together motions which require rulings by more than one judge must be avoided at the outset. To avoid the situation encountered here, all parties are hereby put on notice that in the future the Court will strike any motion which groups together motions that require disposition and/or consideration by more than one judge. Having reviewed the pleadings filed incident to this Motion, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Agreed Motion for Extension of Time Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2009

Page 4 of 5 5 in Which to File a Reply to Epstein’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order Re: Treatment Records and Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to Epstein’s Motion to Strike C.M.A.’s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory Damages (D.E. #234) is GRANTED IN PART AND DEFERRED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: Plaintiff’s Motion, to the extent it seeks an extension of time until August 7, 2009, to file a reply in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. Plaintiff’s Motion, to the extent it seeks an extension of time until August 7, 2009, to file a response to Epstein’s Motion to Strike C.M.A.’s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely is DEFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, as the undersigned is without authority to rule on same. DONE AND ORDERED this August 10, 2009, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida. LINNEA R. JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 258 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2009