* Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM
* Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, I. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, dated December 19, 2008 Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, serves his responses and objections to the Request to Produce, dated December 19, 2008 and states: Request No. 1. All policies of insurance, including the declarations page and all binders, amendments, and endorsements, covering Defendant's residence at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, FL 33480. Response: Objection, overly broad, not relevant and material and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff alleged claims occurred during a specific time period in 2004 - 2005, yet to be specifically identified. Yet, no time period wh
Summary
* Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, I. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, dated December 19, 2008 Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, serves his responses and objections to the Request to Produce, dated December 19, 2008 and states: Request No. 1. All policies of insurance, including the declarations page and all binders, amendments, and endorsements, covering Defendant's residence at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, FL 33480. Response: Objection, overly broad, not relevant and material and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff alleged claims occurred during a specific time period in 2004 - 2005, yet to be specifically identified. Yet, no time period wh
Persons Referenced (3)
“...th day of January, 2009. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Miami FL 33160 Fax: ounse or laintiff Jane Doe #2 Jack Alan Goldberger , P.A. West Pal...”
Jane Doe #2“...man, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Miami FL 33160 Fax: ounse or laintiff Jane Doe #2 Jack Alan Goldberger , P.A. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Fax: uo-uounsei tor tietendant Jeffrey Epst...”
Jeffrey Epstein“... FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, I. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, dated...”
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Technical Artifacts (3)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
9:08-CV-801199:08-CV-80119-KAM401-5012Related Documents (6)
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 7 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 ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files his Answer to the Second Amended Complaint and states: 1. Without knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 41h DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[fit would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege ba
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 148 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 1 of 4 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 UNOPPOSED FIRST MOTION TO AMEND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, moves to amend his affirmative defenses as set forth in the attached Defendant EPSTEIN's First Amended Answer & Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2009); Loc. Gen. Rules 7.1, 15.1 (S.D. Fla. 2009): 1. Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., a party may amend his pleading "only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Plaintiff's counsel has consented in writing to D
EFTA01387839
EFTA02729648
J. MICHAEL BURMAN. RA'
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 1 of 15 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, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion To Stay And Or Continue Action For Time Certain Based On Parallel Civil And Criminal Proceedings With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby moves this Court for the entry of an order staying or continuing this action for a time certain (i.e., until late 2010 when the NPA expires), pursuant to the application of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the fact that a parallel proceeding is ongoing and being investigated. In support of his motion, EPSTEIN states: I. Introduction At the outset, EPSTEIN notes this Court's prior Order, (DE 33), in which this Court denied a motion for stay brought by Def
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.