Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAMCase 9:08-cv-80119-KAM
Case File
efta-efta00221718DOJ Data Set 9Other

3(67936ffee 9:08-0,tfirffnit

3(67936ffee 9:08-0,tfirffnit ins bocument 79-2 Entered on FLSD &Men/II/kit'?" Page riedb JANE DOE NO. 3, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF JANE DOE 3'S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff, JANE DOE 3, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 33, hereby responds to Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff as follows: General Oblections 1. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Interrogatories to the extent that the Interrogatories call for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product doctrine, or other applicable privilege or immunity, whether created by statute or common law. Plaintiff claims such privileges and protections to the extent implicated by each Interrogatory, and excludes privileged and Protecte

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00221718
Pages
3
Persons
1
Integrity

Summary

3(67936ffee 9:08-0,tfirffnit ins bocument 79-2 Entered on FLSD &Men/II/kit'?" Page riedb JANE DOE NO. 3, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF JANE DOE 3'S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff, JANE DOE 3, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 33, hereby responds to Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff as follows: General Oblections 1. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Interrogatories to the extent that the Interrogatories call for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product doctrine, or other applicable privilege or immunity, whether created by statute or common law. Plaintiff claims such privileges and protections to the extent implicated by each Interrogatory, and excludes privileged and Protecte

Persons Referenced (1)

Jeffrey Epstein

“...THERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF JANE DOE 3'S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff, JANE DOE ...”

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
View on efta.gov
Browse DOJ EFTA Releases (OCR)EFTA 00221718

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.
3(67936ffee 9:08-0,tfirffnit ins bocument 79-2 Entered on FLSD &Men/II/kit'?" Page riedb JANE DOE NO. 3, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF JANE DOE 3'S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff, JANE DOE 3, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 33, hereby responds to Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff as follows: General Oblections 1. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Interrogatories to the extent that the Interrogatories call for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product doctrine, or other applicable privilege or immunity, whether created by statute or common law. Plaintiff claims such privileges and protections to the extent implicated by each Interrogatory, and excludes privileged and Protected information from any responses to Defendant's discovery. Any disclosure Is inadvertent and is not intended to waive those privileges or protections, which are specifically reserved. 2. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Interrogatories to the extent that same are vague, ambiguous, incomprehensible and/or overly broad. 6( Cc EFTA00221718 Case 9:08-cvitErialt9l4eThistehleocument 79-2 Entered on FLSD Efedlqf 04/176M92m9Page 246(53 Doe No. 3 v. Epstein Page 6 Royal Palm Beach, FL 4. Have you ever been convicted of a crime, other than any juvenile adjudication, which under the law under which you were convicted was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year, or that involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment? If so, state as to each conviction the specific crime and the date and place of conviction. Answer: 5. Please provide the name, address, telephone number, place of employment and job title of any person who has, claims to have or whom you believe may have knowledge or information pertaining to any fact alleged in the pleadings (as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) filed in this action, or any fact underlying the subject matter of this action. Answer: Plaintiff Other victims making similar allegations of sexual misconduct against Defendant Epstein who have brought civil claims against Epstein in Florida State and Federal courts. Defendant a , Defendant's assistant Unknown staff members of Defendant, including the chef/cook, gardener, and maid SENO Accompanied Plaintiff to Defendant's estate on at least one occasion Accompanied Plaintiff to Defendant's estate on at least one occasion to Defendant's estate on at least one occasion Accompanied Plaintiff to Defendant's estate on at least one occasion 11111111111, EFTA00221719 Case 9:08-citleflarIWKAttifehLbocument 79-2 Entered on FLSD Iiiielkt5P121117r2titlf°9 Page 89ln Doe No. 3 v. Epstein Page 7 111111. 1.111 a Plaintiff has seen Dr. pmmfor therapy since Jan. 2008. nes Plaintiff has seen Dr. 'mot for medication management since Nov. 2007. 111 1111, who treated Plaintiff from Aug. 2007-Dec. 2007. Discovery is ongoing and will be supplemented in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. Please state the specific nature and substance of the knowledge that you believe the person(s) Identified In your response to interrogatory no. 5 may have. Answer: See Plaintiff's Answer to interrogatory No. 5. 7. Were you suffering from physical infirmity, disability, disease, sickness, or psychiatric/psychological condition at the time of the incident(s) described in the complaint? If so, what was the nature of the infirmity, disability, or sickness? Answer: 111111111111111111 8. Did you consume any alcoholic beverages or take any drugs or medications within 12 hours before the time of each incident(s) described in the complaint? If so, state the type and amount of alcoholic beverages, drugs, or medication which were consumed, and when and where you consumed them. Answer: EFTA00221720

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 206 Entered on FLSD Docket 0716/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, EFTA00214072 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 206 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2009 Page 2 of 4 Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plai

4p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

(USAFLS)

(USAFLS) From: Roy Black < Sent: Wednesda , Februa 11, 2015 8:50 AM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Your phone call Great. Speak to you then. Original Message From: (USAFLS) Imailt Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:49 AM To: Roy Black Subject: Re: Your phone call Hi Roy. Thanks for your message. Dexter wants to participate in the call so it is helpful to have a roadmap of the discussion points. We will call your office at 2:00. If there is a better number to call, just shoot me an email. Talk to you soon. Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 On Feb 10, 2015, at 7:35 PM, "Roy Black" < mailto: wrote: Marie I was not calling you about the correspondence so don't worry about that. I called you to discuss the plaintiff's replies filed as dockets 310 and 311. We think there are serious misstatements by them in these pleadings. So I just wanted to let you know what our suggested responses are.

389p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01308033

23p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Reply In Support Of Iler Objections to tnsealinu Sealed Materials Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue EFTA00074964 Ca_QatIgt24743tictoWneDbtOrfiefiVIMOXIle?BOWERKVaffizte12401 22 Introduction This Court asked the parties to brief three issues: "(a) the weight of presumption of public access that should be afforded to an item, (b) the identification and weight of any countervailing interests supporting continued sealing/redaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item." DE 1044 at 1. Plaintiff and the Miami Herald's responses improperly afford the highest level of presumption to discovery dispute documents, deny that any co

40p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05:14:2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, EFTA00222605 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 2 of 4 Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plain

4p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Document alleges Alexander Acosta’s involvement in Jeffrey Epstein plea deal and potential immunity for co‑conspirators

The passage links a former U.S. Labor Secretary (Alexander Acosta) to the negotiation of Epstein’s 2007 non‑prosecution agreement, suggesting possible misconduct and abuse of power. It also mentions A Acosta personally involved in negotiations of Epstein’s 2007 plea deal granting immunity from federa Deal included a 13‑month private jail sentence for Epstein in exchange for cooperation. Acosta lat

4p

Forum Discussions

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

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