rt wrote opinion to explain reasons for its departure from guidelines. 2422(b); 2423(b) Consummated U.S. v. Simo, Slip Copy, 2007 WL 1655399 (S.D. Ha. 2007) Slip Copy No Information In No information available. Report and recommendation that guilty plea be accepted. 2422(6) No Information

the briefing remains sealed, the decision of District Judge Kenneth E. Marra denying the motion, Doe v. United States, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1266 (S.D. Ha. 2013), reveals that the government argued the victims did not have standing because the relief they sought—the vacation or rescission of the non-pr

rement of complete diversity. (a) Plaintiff= is a citizen of Florida. (Compl. ¶ 2.) 3 See Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 08-CV-80119-KAM (S.D. Ha. filed Feb. 6, 2008); Jane Doe No. 3 v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 08-CV-80232-KAM (S.D. Ha. filed Mar. 5, 2008); Jane Doe No. 4 v. Jeffrey Epstein, No.

davit." Doc. #98 at 3-4 (emphasis added) (quoting El-Ad Residences at Mirarmar Condo. Ass'n, Inc.. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 716 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1262 (S.D. Ha. 2010). Rather than heed that specific warning from the Government that he needed to provide "evidence that demonstrates the existence of the privi

ding royalty, politicians, businessmen, and professional and personal acquaintances. Complaint, Jane Doe No. 102 v. Epstein, No. 9:09-CV-80656- KAM (S.D. Ha. May 1, 2009). 3. In 2006, at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation opened an investigation into all

ldberger Fla. Bar No. 262013 Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that this motion, in accordance with S.D. Ha. L.R. 5.4, has not been served on opposing counsel and was filed under seal on July 10, 2008. Michael R. Tein 4 EFTA00221171

N, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Defendant Jeffrey Epstein moves, pursuant to S.D. Ha. L.R. 7.1(A), for an enlargement of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until ten days after his motion for a mandatory stay, file

ibility (OPR) arising out of a decision by United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra in the matter of Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 United States, S.D. Ha. Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra; (3) the materials are needed to avoid an injustice in another proceeding, that is, the OPR administrative proceeding

See Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 08-CV-80119-1CAM (S.D. Fla. filed Feb. 6, 2008); Jane Doe No. 3 v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 08-CV-80232-KAM (S.D. Ha. filed Mar. 5, 2008); Jane Doe No. 4 v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 08-CV-80380-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Apr. 14, 2008); Jane Doe No. 5 v. Jeffrey Epstein, No

Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 26 also Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and Fla. Stat. 768.72; Gallina v. Commerce And Industry, Ins., 2008 WL 3895918 (S.D. Ha. 2009)(unless liability for punitive damages is established at trial, the discovery sought is not relevant). In Gallina, the court held that in lig

lative to their past medical and psychiatric histories and conduct. See Exhibits "B-G." 21. Cherenfant v. Nationwide Credit, Inc. 2004 WL 5315889 (S.D. Ha. 2004) allows 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 Fun

pposing party's case while simultaneously brandishing it as a shield from disclosure of any Achilles heels." Stern v. O'Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 677 (S.D. Ha. 2008). CONCLUSION The Court should direct the Government to produce to the victims all documents that it previously withheld based on work-produc

opposing party's case while simultaneously brandishing it as a shield from disclosure of any Achilles heels." Stern v. O'Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 677 (S.D. Ha. 2008). Or, as the Eleventh Circuit has articulated the principle, a litigant "can no more advance the work-product doctrine to sustain a unilatera

AGAINST DEFENDANT Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 3, by and through her undersigned counsel, and pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) and S.D. Ha. L.R. 7.1, hereby files this Motion for Entry of Default Against Defendant, and states as follows: 1. On May 7, 2008. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein wa

. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80232 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 4._vinstein, Case No. 08-80380 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 5 v, Epstein, Case No. 08- 80381 (S.D. Ha. 2008); C.M.A. v. Epstein Case No. 08-80811 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No, 7 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-

pstein, 2009 WL 383332 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); Doe No. 31. Epstein 2009 WL 383330 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); Doe No. 41. Epstein, 2009 WL 383286 (S.D. Ha. Feb. 12, 2009); and Doe No. 5I. Epstein, 2009 WI, 383383 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); see also U.S. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.

oe No. 71. Epstein, Case No. 08-80993 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 6'. Epstein, Case No. 08-80994 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe II Epstein, Case No. 09-80469 (S.D. Ha. 2009); Doe No. 101 Epstein, Case No. 09-80591 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 102'. Epstein, Case No. 09-80656 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 81. Epstein, C