Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 90-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Pag Vit JANE DOE NO. 2, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINITFF'S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff, JANE DOE 2, by and through her undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 33, hereby resRonds toptefendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff as fo4oWs: General Objections 1. Plaintiff objects to Defendants 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 r
Summary
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 90-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Pag Vit JANE DOE NO. 2, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINITFF'S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff, JANE DOE 2, by and through her undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 33, hereby resRonds toptefendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff as fo4oWs: General Objections 1. Plaintiff objects to Defendants 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 r
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Technical Artifacts (10)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
9:08-CV-80119-KAMFax: 305 442 6744Fax: 561-835-8691305 442 6744305-442-1101401-5012515-3148561-659-8300561-835-8691842-2820Related Documents (6)
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/0612008 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE STIPULATION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND AGREED DATE FOR DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO COMPLAINTS EFTA00222397 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08(0612008 Page 2 of 2 Plaintiffs, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4 and Jane Doe 5, and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, file this Joint Motion for Approval of Stipulation of Acceptance of Service of Process and Agreed Date for Defendant's Respo
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2008 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, (EPSTEIN), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files his reply to Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Motions To Dismiss, dated October 31, 2008, and states: Although Plaintiffs, Jane Doe Nos. 2 through 7, are separate and distinct persons, in separate and distinct actions, with separate and distinct facts and circumstances pertaining to the claims each is attempting to allege, Plaintiffs' counsel has filed a broad brush, identical response to Defendant's motions to dismiss and for more definite statement which were filed in each of the actions. As pointed out in Defendant's previo
EFTA00013564
EFTA Document EFTA01660024
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. VICTIM'S MOTION TO UNSEAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT COMES NOW the Petitioners, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, by and through their undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 ("CVRA"), and file this motion to unseal the non-prosecution agreement that has been provided to their attorneys under seal in this case. The agreement should be unsealed because no good cause exists for sealing it. Moreover, the Government has inaccurately described the agreement in its publicly-filed pleadings, creating a false impression that the agreement protects the victims. Finally, the agreement should be unsealed to facilitate consultation by victims' counsel with others involved who have
EFTA Document EFTA01428364
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.