Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant / RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO "CONSOLIDATION" OF CASES AND OBJECTING TO CONSOLIDATION OF DEPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANT AND TO ANY DELAY IN CURRENTLY PENDING DISCOVERY COMES NOW plaintiff Jane Doe No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff' in this pleading), by and through her undersigned counsel, to respond in opposition to consolidating her case with other cases for discovery purposes. The Court should deny consolidation, without prejudice to Jane Doc No. 3 re-filing the motion with more specific information about what the consolidation would entail. As the Court is aware, there is currently a case management order in place in this case (DE 20), which sets the parameters of discovery. Jane Doe No. 3 (and, apparently, several other Jane Does represented by the same counsel) have filed a motion to consolidate their pending cases with Plaintiff's case. The only articulated concern of these persons was to avoid multiple - and harassing - depositions about sexual abuse. That concern has now been obviated by the Court's entry of an order (DE 43) limiting depositions of each of the Jane Does. It is therefore, unclear what Jane Due Nu. 3 specifically hopes to further accomplish by consolidation. Moreover, it is unclear to what extent consolidation would alter the existing case management EFTA00234804 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 2 of 4 CASE NO: 08-CV-8089.3-MARRAMOHNSON order in this case. This confusion is compounded by the fact that Jane Doe No. 3 did not (apparently contrary to the local rules) provide any proposed order that she wished the Court to enter granting specific relief on consolidation. Plaintiff is particularly concerned about two possible ramifications of "consolidation." First. Plaintiff is concerned that she be given her own, individual opportunity to depose Epstein about the abuse that he perpetrated against her and about the other aspects of her own, individual case. Jane Doe No l's consolidation motion appears to envision consolidating 10 cases together, involving ten minor girls who each allege separate and specific acts of sexual abuse by Epstein against each of them over several years. If Plaintiff is given only one-tenth of a one-day deposition to ask questions about her particular case, then her ability to gather relevant evidence will he severely and unfairly limited. She will barely have enough time (assuming time is allocated pro rata) to ask about the acts of sexual abuse -- let alone the many other aspects of the case that she needs to explore to be prepared for trial. These problems arc compounded by the fact that Plaintiff's legal theories and factual assertions are, in significant respects, different from those of other Jane Does and their separate legal counsel. Second, Plaintiff is concerned that any consolidation not serve as a basis for delay by Epstein in answering her interrogatories, requests for production, and requests fur admission that Plaintiff has properly served on him. Any delay would serve to severely prejudice Plaintiff. For all these reasons, the Court should deny the motion for consolidation without prejudice. Jane Doe No. 3 could then re-file the motion with more specific information about how the consolidation would operate and how it would affect the existing case management order. 2 EFTA00234805 Case 9 08-cv-80893-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 3 of 4 CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRAMOHNSON DATED this 4th day of May, 2009. Respectfully Submitted, ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER By: s/ Brad Edwards Rrad Edwards, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff Florida Bar No. 542075 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-522-3456 Facsimile: 954-527-8663 E-Mail: Paul a Cassell Attorney for Plaintiff Pro Hac Vice 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: liall IIMMI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on 4th day of May, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. 3 EFTA00234806 Case 9 08-cv-80893-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 4 of 4 CASE NO: 08-C V-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON SERVICE LIST Jane Doe, Plaintiff vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant Case No.: OR-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esquire Atterburty, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire Michael J. Pike, Esquire Burman, Critton, Lunier & Coleman, LLP 515 North Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 si Brad Edwards Brad Edwards, Esquire Florida Bar No. 542075 HAs*Tdocs'09.2278a Wild v Epsiciffiresponse to orda to show cause-cps:cm rinoi.dov 4 EFTA00234807