Case File
efta-02728703DOJ Data Set 11OtherEFTA02728703
Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 11
Reference
efta-02728703
Pages
3
Persons
0
Integrity
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureText extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CRIMINAL DIVISION "W"
CASE NO.: 06-CF009454AXX
STATE OF FLORIDA,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING "MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER"
THIS CAUSE came before the Court, in chambers, upon receipt of
"Response to the Motion for Protective Order' dated February 8, 2008, filed by
Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire, received in undersigned chambers on February 11,
2008 (not docketed). The Court has reviewed the "Motion for Protective Order"
and said Response. Based upon the Court's review of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the "Motion for Protective Order" dated
February 5, 2008, is hereby, DENIED as being moot. There is no need for a
hearing on this matter.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at WestelMlocliclAlarielmtruch
County, Florida, this the
day of FebruattY0tfer
FEB 1 2 2008
JUDGE SANDRA K. McS0RLEY
SANDRA K. McSORLEY
Circuit Judge
copies furnished:
Lana Belohlavek. Assistant State Attorney. 401 N. Obtie Highway. West Palm Beach. FL 33401
Jack A. Goldberger. Esquire, 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400. West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Theodore J. Leopold, Esquire, 2925 PGA Blvd., Ste. 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
kerl020708
09/1212019
Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFIDENTIAL
NTIAL
SDNY_GM_00330055
EFTA 00202781
EFTA02728703
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH
COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 2006CF009454A
STATE OF FLORIDA
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
COMES NOW the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his attorney and
files his response to the Motion For Protective Order filed by counsel for State's witness
Jane Doe No. 1.
1. In summary fashion, counsel for Jane Doe No. 1 complains that serving a
witness for deposition by the use of a process server and the service of the witness'
parents for the deposition to ensure service, amounts to "continuous and systematic
harassment".
2. The Motion For Protective Order was filed by one of the attorneys purporting to
represent Jane Doe No. 1 in a separate civil proceeding.' While disagreeing with the
' Undersigned counsel for the Defendant responds only to the issues in the Motion for
Protective Order concerning service of a subpoena for deposition and the date for that deposition.
Defendant and undersigned counsel have no knowledge of any agent of the Defendant going to
the witness' place of employment representing "himself as an attorney who needed to contract
(sp) her" as alleged "on information and belief' in paragraph 8 of the Motion for Protective
Order.
2 The Motion for Protective Order was filed by attorney Theodore Leopold. While he
purports to represent Jane Doe No.1, attorney Jeffrey Herman also claims to represent the
interests of Jane Doe No. 1. In that separate civil proceeding, the two law firms are presently
litigating who represents the interests of Jane Doe No. 1.
09/12/2019
Pe
CONFIDENTIAL
Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
SDNY_GM_00330056
EFTA 0(1202782
EFTA02728704
assertion in the Motion For Protective Order that Mr. Leopold and the undersigned agreed
that Mr. Leopold would accept service on behalf of Jane Doe No. 1, and that the
undersigned had agreed not to take the disposition on February 6, 2008, the matter has
been rendered moot.
3. Prior to filing of a Motion For Protective Order, Mr. Leopold and the undersigned
conferred and agreed in writing with the consent of the State Attorney's Office to the taking
of Jane Doe No.1's deposition on February 20, 2008. The parties have also agreed that
Mr. Leopold will accept service for Jane Doe's No.1's appearance on that date eliminating
the need to use a process server to serve Jane Doe No.1. See Exhibit "A" attached. (Jane
Doe No. l's real name has been redacted from the exhibit.)
WHEREFORE, given the fact that the parties have agreed to a procedure for the
taking of Jane Doe's No.1's deposition, it is respectfully requested that this Court deny
Jane Doe No.1's Motion for Protective Order as moot.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by mail to
Lanna Belohlavek, Esquire, The Office of the State Attorney, 401 North Dixie Highway,
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, Theodore J. Leopold, Esquire, 2925 PGA Boulevard,
Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, 33410 and Jeffrey Herman, Esquire, 18205
Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218, Miami, Florida, 33160, on this r day of February, 2008.
09112/2019
ATTERBURY GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A.
250 A
tralia
venu r South
Suit-
00
We
m rea h, F erida 33401
(56
CK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ.
orida Bar No.: 262013
Page
CONFIDENTIAL
Agency to Agency Requet 19-411
SDNY_GM_00330057
EFTA 00202783
EFTA02728705
Related Documents (6)
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown
EFTA02729648
53p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown
EFTA Document EFTA01689427
0p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown
EFTA01689427
100p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown
EFTA Document EFTA01711760
0p
DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown
EFTA00023624
0p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown
EFTA01711760
100p
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.