ED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order (DE 462) pursuant to Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 4, Rule 4(c) and

heir failure to seek a prompt resolution of the case. However, in light of the Court's Order, it would seem that this issue is better resolved in a Motion for Reconsideration or on appeal of that ruling rather than in this Supplemental Briefing. Accordingly, the Intervenors' third argument is not addressed herein. 5 EFT

e 5 of 8 the objection 'so general and sweeping in nature" that they aamount[ed] to a blanket assertion of the privilege: Id. p.11. In the instant Motion for Reconsideration, Epstein has set forth additional facts and detailed reasoning successfully demonstrating how forcing him to answer these requests would realistica

econsideration (DE #560). Jane Doe will respond to this amended motion for reconsideration. ARGUMENT Jane Doe has an interest in Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Reconsideration (DE #560), which should be dismissed as utterly without merit (and seemingly filed simply for obstructionist purposes). Epstein's claim that the b

econsideration (DE #560). Jane Doe will respond to this amended motion for reconsideration. ARGUMENT Jane Doe has an interest in Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Reconsideration (DE #560), which should be dismissed as utterly without merit (and seemingly filed simply for obstructionist purposes). Epstein's claim that the b

0, 2015. The required Notice of Service was never filed with the Court in respect of that attempt, which you, yourself, conceded in your later filed Motion for Reconsideration was improper service. After rescheduling the hearing on Mr. Epstein's April 29, 2015 Motion to Quash four separate times, you failed to appear at th

anying Affidavit Anoushka Anna McCoy Hodge & FRANCOIS EFTA00431073 The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Motion for Reconsideration by Plaintiff -Affidavit 2011-06-21 Motion for Reconsideration by Plaintiff 2011-06-21 Motion for Reconsideration by Plaintiff - Memorandum 2011-06-

heir failure to seek a prompt resolution of the case. However, in light of the Court's Order, it would seem that this issue is better resolved in a Motion for Reconsideration or on appeal of that ruling rather than in this Supplemental Briefing. Accordingly, the Intervenors' third argument is not addressed herein. 5 EFT

, FL 33301. EFTA00613846 Reconsideration. Three months later, Edwards has filed this purported "supplemental authority" in support of his initial Motion for Reconsideration. However, this supplemental authority" does nothing more than establish the fact that another trial court, just as this Court did in the case at h

. The Court has reviewed the Motion and is fully advised in the premises. It is thereupon CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant EDWARDS' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied. DONE AND ORDERED this _ day of January, 2011 at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. 8 /04% ) DAVID F. CROVIVRe. "<$ 4

March 10, 2015. In that attempt the required Notice of Service was never filed with the Court, and which you, yourself, agreed in your later filed Motion for Reconsideration was an improper service. After rescheduling the hearing on Mr. Epstein's Motion to Quash, filed on April 29, 2015, and on four different occasions,