s had further reason to believe and did in fact believe that the pilot and flight logs might contain relevant evidence for the cases against Epstein. Jane Doe No. 102’s complaint outlined Epstein’s daily sexual exploitation and abuse of underage minors as young as 12 years old and alleged that Epstein’s plane w

he rights afforded to victims under the CVRA, but that the act did not apply to pre-indictment negotiations with potential federal defendants. After Jane Doe No. 2 joined the initial petition, the district court (Marra, J.) found that both women qualified as “crime victims” under the CVRA. The district court l

N”) (c) Trump allegedly banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club; (d) Jane Doe No. 102’s complaint alleged that Jane Doe 102 was initially approached at Trump’s Maralago by Ghislaine Maxwell and recruited to be Maxwell and Epstem’s

ugh a source that Trump banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club; (d) Jane Doe No. 102’s complaint alleged that Jane Doe 102 was initially approached at Trump’s Maralago by Ghislaine Maxwell and recruited to be Maxwell and Epstein’s

e of prostitution solicitation. CNN was unable to reach Martin Weinberg, Epstein's attorney, on Thursday. In her first sworn statement to the court, Jane Doe No. 3 gave more details of the alleged encounters. "Epstein made me have sex with Prince Andrew several times," she said, according to the court document

ing documents from a non-party that are irrelevant to the defamation issue before this Court. Defendant is determined to find a way to harm non-party Jane Doe No. 3 and anyone who braves to represent her. Jane Doe No. 3 has good cause to be fearful of the Defendant in this matter based on Defendant’s repetitive

TER DEFAULT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), hereby opposes plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2’s motion for order compelling clerk to enter default, or alternatively, for enlargement of time to serve process, upon the following showing of “

the Defendant’s efforts to take the deposition of Jane Doe No. 3 as a witness in this case. Defendant, however, does not at this time seek to take Jane Doe No. 3’s deposition in her own case. The Defendant apparently intends to take Jane Doe No. 3’s deposition at least twice, and as discussed below, most

E NO. 102’s REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AND RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102 IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY1 Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 (together, “Plaintiffs”), by and thro

06/04/2009 Page 3 of 11 JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. II, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. IOI, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 102, Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469- MARRA

e Vinyard was physically and verbally abusive to Jane Doe No. 4, his girlfriend at the time. There is referenc

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO. 4 AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Defendant,

. 4, and then stopping to stare at and intimidate Jane Doe No. 4, is a violation of this Court’s No-Contact Ord

d costs reasonably and necessarily incurred by Plaintiff due to Defendant’s non-compliance with the Court’s No-Contact Order; (2) an Order excusing Jane Doe No. 4 from her deposition on September 16, 2009, due to Defendant’s violation of the No-Contact Order and defense counsel’s breach of his promise to Pl

before Jane Doe No. 4 appeared for deposition on September 16, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. (D.E. 306). 6. At approximately 1:00 p.m. on September 16, 2009, Jane Doe No. 4 and her counsel were walking in the lobby of 250 Australian Ave South, Suite 115, West Palm Beach, Florida, toward the ground-floor conference ro

Introduction Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2009 Page 1 of 7 2 2. Pursuant to Court Order, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4’s deposition was taken on October 27, 2009. The deposition lasted from approximately 11:00 a.m. until 6:04 p.m. Defendant’s counsel stopped his

r information that could reasonably be calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Epstein is not alleged to be the man responsible for impregnating Jane Doe No. 4 on any occasion. Counsel intends to inquire into these matters solely for the purpose of harassing, embarrassing, and oppressing Jane Doe No. 4.

_______________________/ JANE DOE NO. 4’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO THE SCOPE OF INQUIRY AT THE DEPOSITIONS OF JANE DOE NO. 4’s PARENTS Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4 (“Plaintiff”), submits this Reply in Support of Her Motion for Protective Order as to the Scope of Inqui

d at her IME. During a brief recess in the IME, Jane Doe No. 3 and her attorney were outside the office build

led by Defendant Epstein contains multiple misleading and inaccurate statements of both law and fact. 2. Defendant Epstein claims that Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 3’s attorneys were aware that Defendant Epstein kept an office in the building where the medical examination (IME) of Jane Doe No. 3 was to take pl