UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, PARTIES' CONFIDENTIAL JOINT STATUS REPORT The parties, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file this joint status report on the state of settlement negotiations. In support thereof, the parties state: 1. On May 23, 2016, the parties appeared before the Hon. Dave Lee Brannon for a settlement conference (DE392). Progress was made towards settlement, and it was agreed that the parties would continue working on their own towards settlement and re-convene for a second settlement conference on June 28, 2016 (kl.). In accordance with that schedule, U.S. Magistrate Judge Brannon ordered the parties to file a joint status report by noon on June 24, 2016 (DE393), which was later continued to noon on July 1, 2016 (DE395). 2. The parties have continued to discuss the matter and progress continue
Summary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, PARTIES' CONFIDENTIAL JOINT STATUS REPORT The parties, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file this joint status report on the state of settlement negotiations. In support thereof, the parties state: 1. On May 23, 2016, the parties appeared before the Hon. Dave Lee Brannon for a settlement conference (DE392). Progress was made towards settlement, and it was agreed that the parties would continue working on their own towards settlement and re-convene for a second settlement conference on June 28, 2016 (kl.). In accordance with that schedule, U.S. Magistrate Judge Brannon ordered the parties to file a joint status report by noon on June 24, 2016 (DE393), which was later continued to noon on July 1, 2016 (DE395). 2. The parties have continued to discuss the matter and progress continue
Persons Referenced (4)
“...e Dave Lee Brannon and counsel for Petitioners. 2 EFTA00211585 SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN United States...”
Jane Doe #1Jane Doe #2“...RN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, PARTIES' CONFIDENTIAL JOINT STATUS REPORT The p...”
Bradley EdwardsTags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Related Documents (6)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. PARTIES' CONFIDENTIAL JOINT STATUS REPORT The parties, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file this joint status report on the state of settlement negotiations. In support thereof, the parties state: 1. On May 23, 2016, the parties appeared before the Hon. Dave Lee Brannon for a settlement conference (DE392). Progress was made towards settlement, and it was agreed that the parties would continue working on their own towards settlement and re-convene for a second settlement conference on June 28, 2016 (id.). In accordance with that schedule, U.S. Magistrate Judge Brannon ordered the parties to file a joint status report by noon on June 24, 2016 (DE393), which was later continued to noon on July 1, 2016 (DE395). 2. The parties have continued to discuss the matter and progress continues t
Jane Doe 1 & Jane 2 vs. USA
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 1 of 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. _____________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the Court upon Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE 361); the United States’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 408); Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos £t Lehrman, P.L. 'Ovid Pam ftoisl pet WWW.PATITTOJUSTKE.COM 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 4 00 "ti e 6.‘ tk i r atire CalkAllfle alvdtr aIINNEV rar ,NYTTENNINIP PITNEY 'OWES 02 !F $003 , 50 0 000i3V, wit JAN 2i 2,2!3 .a4P En M ZIP t20-12E 3330 Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafatia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00191396 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 EFTA00191397 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT MOTION TO SEAL Petitioners Jane Doc No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, joined by movants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, move to file the attached pleading and supporti
Dershowitz’s Unproduced ‘Absolute Proof’ Documents and Media Claims in Epstein‑Related Defamation Litigation
The filing reveals that Alan Dershowitz repeatedly asserted on national TV that he possessed travel, credit‑card and other records proving he never met Jane Doe #3, yet has failed to produce any such Dershowitz claimed on Fox Business (Jan 7 2015) and CNN (Jan 5 2015) to have "all kinds of records" Despite a 45‑day deadline, he produced no documents and responded only with boilerplate objections
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents. RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE #3 AND JANE DOE #4'S CORRECTED MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 21 FOR JOINDER IN ACTION Respondent United States, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Opposition to Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's Correction Motion pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action (D.E. 280), and states: I. PETITIONERS' MOTION TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL PARTIES SHOULD BE DENIED AS UNTIMELY This action was commenced by Jane Doe #1 on July 7, 2008 (D.E. 1). The Court ordered the Government to file a response by July 9, 2008, which was done. On July 11, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the emergency petition. At that hearing, Jane Doe #2 was added to the petition. Now, over six years into the litigation, petitioners want to add two new petitioners. Petitioners' motion should be denied becaus
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE No. 1 and JANE DOE No. 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Respondent United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, responds to petitioners' Supplemental Request for Production to the Government Regarding Co- Conspirator Immunity Provision and Related Subjects, and states: Supplemental Discovery Request 1 (a) The September 3, 2008 Notification of Identified Victim, addressed to Jane Doe No. 3, is attached. Bates number 000911-000913, and 000918-000921. (b) No crime victim notifications were sent to Jane Doe No. 4 because the respondent was not aware of her existence until it received the August 20, 2014 letter from petitioners' counsel, Brad Edwards. (c) See Bates numbers 000670-000965, and 000966-000979. Also, the USAO-SDFL has thirty (30) draft lette
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.