interrogatory is "harassing,' "outrageous, offensive and is apparently posed for the purpose of intimidating Plaintiff." See Defendant's Motion to Compel directed to Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, addressing identical discovery issues. Both Defendant's interrogatories

9, 2009, to respond to the Defendant's Motions to Compel, et al. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Zt ~~L~

ents, subdivision (c). Defendant has made no such showing in his Motion to Compel to overcome this presumption. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel must be denied in its entirety. Defendant also seeks in Request #1 “all tax returns and supporting documentation” dating back to 2002. Plaintif

ERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of time of until May 6, 2009, to respond to the Defendant's Motions to Compel, et al. DONE AND ~RD ED in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, h• / d f UNG O tis_ ayo ,209. -/ ~ L c;:;;><- ,_,_.

he Court were to grant Jane Doe No. 4's Motion, it would essentially be punishing Epstein for timely proceeding with discovery while his Motions to Compel (DE #s 67 & 68) related to past sexual history were still pending, which 1 Despite Jane Doe No. 4's assertion that "[t]he nature of this case, for d

othing more than a vague and contentless statement that the materials are "likely to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence." Motion to Compel at 12 n.3, which is all that plaintiff offers as to Request No. 10. This is particularly so given the reality that parties often take positions or o

othing more than a vague and contentless statement that the materials are "likely to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence." Motion to Compel at 12 n.3, which is all that plaintiff offers as to Request No. 10. This is Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2