Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00209256DOJ Data Set 9Other

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT MOTION TO SEAL Petitioners Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), through counsel, hereby move to seal their DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER for the following reasons: 1. This Honorable Court's Order [DE 249 at I] states that "...petitioners should not comply with the Order Granting Petitioners' Motion to Proffer Government Correspondence in Support of CVRA Claims & Granting Motion to Unseal Correspondence and Related Unredacted Pleadings of Petitioners (DE 188) until further order of this Court." 2. Petitioners seek leave to file this DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER under seal, in an abundance of caution, because it

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00209256
Pages
5
Persons
4
Integrity

Summary

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT MOTION TO SEAL Petitioners Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), through counsel, hereby move to seal their DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER for the following reasons: 1. This Honorable Court's Order [DE 249 at I] states that "...petitioners should not comply with the Order Granting Petitioners' Motion to Proffer Government Correspondence in Support of CVRA Claims & Granting Motion to Unseal Correspondence and Related Unredacted Pleadings of Petitioners (DE 188) until further order of this Court." 2. Petitioners seek leave to file this DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER under seal, in an abundance of caution, because it

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009

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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT MOTION TO SEAL Petitioners Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), through counsel, hereby move to seal their DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER for the following reasons: 1. This Honorable Court's Order [DE 249 at I] states that "...petitioners should not comply with the Order Granting Petitioners' Motion to Proffer Government Correspondence in Support of CVRA Claims & Granting Motion to Unseal Correspondence and Related Unredacted Pleadings of Petitioners (DE 188) until further order of this Court." 2. Petitioners seek leave to file this DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER under seal, in an abundance of caution, because it discusses material that Epstein has Moved to prevent the disclosure of, and the Court has ordered the victims not to file other similar material in its previous Order [DE 249]. EFTA00209256 3. While the victims, for all of the reasons stated previously by this Court and those recounted within their Response, do not believe that their Response or any of the materials contained therein should be sealed, we are proceeding with extreme caution so as to allow the Court to definitively decide that issue before any materials subject to Epstein's Motion are made part of the public file. WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER be sealed until further order of the Court. Alternatively, if the Court denies the instant motion to seal, then Petitioners respectfully request that their Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Protective Order be filed in the public file and docketed as of today's date, as timely filed. DATED: May 16, 2014. Respectfully Submitted, Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice los EFTA00209257 Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 EFTA00209258 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on May 16, 2014, on the following using the Court's CWECF system: Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. Jay P. Le0cowitz Kirkland & Ellis, LLP om Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. nos Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein /s/ Bradley J. Edwards EFTA00209259 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES, Respondent. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL It is hereby ordered that DOE I AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER be sealed until further order of this Court. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Palm Beach County, Florida, this day of May. 2014. KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE EFTA00209260

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01355640

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70 EXHIBIT A PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS EFTA00208682 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 70 PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS Key to Objections (linking to Victims' Motion to Compel Production of Docments that Are Not Prig ileged Objection General Objections -- Inadequate Privilege Log Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim Waiver of Confidentiality Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Privilege Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered Factual Materials Not Covered Documents Not Prepared in Anticipation of CVRA Litigation Attorney Client Objections - Ordinary Governmental Communications Not Covered Attorney-Client Relationship Not Established Deliberative Process Objections - Privilege Not Properly Invoked Final Decision Exempted from Privilege Qualified Privilege Ove

70p
Court UnsealedSep 9, 2019

Epstein Depositions

10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 16. 17. l8. 19. Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley J. Edwards, et Case No.: 50 2009 CA Attachments to Statement of Undisputed Facts Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein taken March 17, 2010 Deposition of Jane Doe taken March 11, 2010 (Pages 379, 380, 527, 564?67, 568) Deposition of LM. taken September 24, 2009 (Pages 73, 74, 164, 141, 605, 416) Deposition ofE.W. taken May 6, 2010 (1 15, 1.16, 255, 205, 215?216) Deposition of Jane Doe #4 (32-34, 136) Deposition of Jeffrey Eps

839p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res

65p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS During the hearing on August 12, 2011, the Court directed the proposed intervenors to file additional briefing on their argument that plea negotiations are privileged and not subject to discovery or use as evidence in these proceedings. Proposed intervenors submit the following memorandum of law, which is identical to Parts I and II of the memorandum of law submitted by proposed intervenor Jeffrey Epstein in support of his motion for a protective order and his opposition to the motions of the plaintiffs for production, use,

23p

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.