Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00221751DOJ Data Set 9Other

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

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00221751
Pages
4
Persons
1
Integrity

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

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.
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 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. " A I V EFTA00221751 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 90-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 2 of 4 Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 8 9. Describe each injury (physical, emotional, mental) for which you are claiming damages in this case, specifying the part of your body that was injured, the nature of the injury, and as to any injuries you contend are permanent, the effects on you that you claim are permanent. Answer: Plaintiff has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries, including without limitation, anxiety, low self-esteem, feelings of guilt, self-blame, distrustfulness, burdened often by sadness and depression, suicidal thoughts, difficulty trusting others (particularly men), irritability, anger, feeling helpless and powerless, escapism through excessive partying, lack of confidence, loss of innocence. Plaintiffs psychological and emotional injuries will be analyzed by a forensic expert, whose opinions and related information will be disclosed in accordance with the expert discovery rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Please state each item of damage that you claim, and include in your answer: the count to which the item of damages relates; the factual basis for each item of damages; and an explanation of how you computed each item of damages, including any mathematical formula used. Answer: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as calling for an expert opinion and calculation. Subject to said objection, Plaintiff states that she seeks damages arising from her psychological and emotional injuries. These damages include pain and suffering, costs of psychological care and treatment, and loss of earning capacity. The pecuniary elements of these damages will be analyzed and computed by an appropriate expert. 11. List the names and business addresses of each physician (including psychiatrist, psychologist, etc.) or medical provider (including chiropractors) who has treated or examined you, and each medical facility where you have received any treatment or examination for the injuries for which you seek damages in this EFTA00221752 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 90-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 3 of 4 VERIFICATION being duly sworn, deposes and says that the foregoing an ewers to interrogatories are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. STATE OF FLORIDA ) ss COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ) before me this ,LL day of 2009 by who is personally known to me or has produced the following identification ". 4 id P. which is current or has been issued within the past five years and bears a serial or other identifying number. E.-Jetty a CO-€5 e iti Print Name rx 27, ,b. Signature NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF FLORIDA Commission Number: My commission expires: (Notarial Seal) .5-4734 e. tr-PIL IR7;10 EFTA00221753 Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this Robert D. Critton, Jr, Esq. Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax V VT IP '• WV V • Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Michael R. Tein, Esq. Lewis Tein, P.L. 3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 Coconut Grove, FL 33133 305-442-1101 Fax: 305 442 6744 Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein tein@liewisteinfnm Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 90-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009 Page 4 of 4 Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 16 Certificate of Service WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of t oregoing has been sent via U.S. day of January, 2009. EFTA00221754

Technical Artifacts (10)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

Case #9:08-CV-80119-KAM
FaxFax: 305 442 6744
FaxFax: 561-835-8691
Phone305 442 6744
Phone305-442-1101
Phone401-5012
Phone515-3148
Phone561-659-8300
Phone561-835-8691
Phone842-2820

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

6p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

3p
DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00013564

0p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01660024

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

8p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01428364

0p

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.