Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-27799House OversightOther

Court docket notes on motions and trial scheduling for undisclosed case

The passage consists of procedural courtroom language about motions, briefs, and scheduling without identifying any high‑profile individuals, organizations, financial transactions, or substantive alle Mentions plaintiff's omnibus motion related to §§404(b) and 415. References a Jane Doe 102 complaint and competing motion 663. Lists several motion numbers (e.g., 685, 772) and a calendar note about

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #011392
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage consists of procedural courtroom language about motions, briefs, and scheduling without identifying any high‑profile individuals, organizations, financial transactions, or substantive alle Mentions plaintiff's omnibus motion related to §§404(b) and 415. References a Jane Doe 102 complaint and competing motion 663. Lists several motion numbers (e.g., 685, 772) and a calendar note about

Tags

motion-schedulinglegal-proceduralhouse-oversightlegal-docketcourt-procedure

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 H3VOGIU1 name of it, but it was the plaintiff's motion, sort of omnibus related to different acts either under 404(b) or 415. The plaintiff wanted until 15 days before trial to make whatever showing they wanted. It would make sense -- well, in defendant's 404(b) motion, there are some of those issues, as well. We certainly could argue part of that. The Court may want to defer that to the entirety of when we have whatever the supplement is to that motion yesterday. Then we also, I believe, dealt with yesterday the issue related to the Jane Doe 102 complaint. We have a competing motion on that. That's 663. It seems to me that was argued yesterday, and we don't need to repeat those arguments, which is the same argument we had yesterday. So in my view, your Honor, that leaves the bifurcated trial motion, which has been fully briefed, the Kellen and Marcinkova issue, and the police report issue. So by my count, we have those thr I also have on my calendar that our motion to preclude -- or the plaintiff's motion to preclude calling attorneys as witnesses, which is 685 and 772, and by my calendaring the reply was due yesterday. I think Ms. McCawley has a different version of that, and so frankly, I don't care whether we hear that today or some other time. So that's my accounting of what we have ripe for argument today, or shouldn't have argument today, as the case SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

Technical Artifacts (3)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Phone(212) 805-0300
SWIFT/BICDISTRICT
SWIFT/BICSOUTHERN

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.