Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2012 Page 1 of 4

Date

Unknown

Source

DOJ Data Set 9

Reference

efta-efta00622656

Pages

Persons

Integrity

No Hash Available

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0upvotesShare

Post Reddit

Save Post Watch

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure

Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2012 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR A PROMPT RULING DENYING GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO STAY Respondent United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Response to Petitioners' Motion for a Prompt Ruling Denying Government's Motion to Stay, and states: The government filed its motion to stay discovery on November 7, 2011. The motion was premised upon the government filing a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, also filed on November 7, 2011. Petitioners filed their opposition to both motions, and the government filed its replies. Now the petitioners ask the Court to deny the motion to stay, claiming that "Mlle practical effect of a lack of a ruling on that motion has been to effectively grant the stay." D.E. 179 at 1. The government sought a stay of discovery because it had filed a motion to dismiss challenging this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. The Government argued that resolution of the threshold jurisdictional question should occur before requiring the parties and the Court to expend time and resources in the discovery process. That argument remains valid. EFTA00622656 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2012 Page 2 of 4 Petitioners' contention that the stay has been "effectively granted" (D.E. 179 at 2-3) seems to suggest the Government has already received a benefit, but is still not complying with its present legal obligations, such as when a party seeks an enlargement of seven days to file a document, seven days elapse without the Court ruling on the motion, and the party still has not filed the document. But the government's motion did not seek additional time to comply with discovery, and the government certainly has not ignored or failed to comply with a legal requirement that has already ripened. Instead, the government sought the stay because it should not be obligated to incur the expense and expend the time necessary to respond to petitioners' far-reaching discovery requests—which include twenty-five requests for broad categories of information, many composed of numerous sub-parts, and which go well beyond the issues for which the Court authorized limited discovery and seek information independently protected from discovery and disclosure—where the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and certainly not while a case-dispositive, jurisdictional motion to dismiss is pending. That is still the case. Petitioners are not entitled to discovery while the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is pending. Consequently, the government's motion to stay discovery should be granted. DATED: December 21, 2012 Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant U.S. Attorne Fla. Bar No. 2 EFTA00622657 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2012 Page 3 of 4 Assistant U.S. Attorneys 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Fax: E-mail: Attorneys for Respondent CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 21, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, and served the attorneys on the attached Service List by U.S. Mail. s/ Assistant U.S. Attorney SERVICE LIST Jane Does I and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Fax: E-mail: Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake Cit Utah 84112 Fax: E-mail: Attorneys for Jane Doe # I and Jane Doe #2 3 EFTA00622658 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 182 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2012 Page 4 of 4 Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 Fax: 4 EFTA00622659

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

Case #9:08-CV-80736-KAM

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res

65p

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 312 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2015 Page 1 of 3

Court UnsealedSep 9, 2019

Epstein Depositions

10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 16. 17. l8. 19. Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley J. Edwards, et Case No.: 50 2009 CA Attachments to Statement of Undisputed Facts Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein taken March 17, 2010 Deposition of Jane Doe taken March 11, 2010 (Pages 379, 380, 527, 564?67, 568) Deposition of LM. taken September 24, 2009 (Pages 73, 74, 164, 141, 605, 416) Deposition ofE.W. taken May 6, 2010 (1 15, 1.16, 255, 205, 215?216) Deposition of Jane Doe #4 (32-34, 136) Deposition of Jeffrey Eps

839p

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-MarratIVIatthewman JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Third Supplemental Privilege Log. The index has been marked with Bates Numbers P-014924 thru P-015267. The documents referenced in the Third Supplemental Privilege Log will be delivered tomorrow to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex parte in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: s/A. Marie Villafafia A. MARIE VILLAFAFIA Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 40

446p

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70 EXHIBIT A PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS EFTA00208682 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 70 PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS Key to Objections (linking to Victims' Motion to Compel Production of Docments that Are Not Prig ileged Objection General Objections -- Inadequate Privilege Log Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim Waiver of Confidentiality Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Privilege Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered Factual Materials Not Covered Documents Not Prepared in Anticipation of CVRA Litigation Attorney Client Objections - Ordinary Governmental Communications Not Covered Attorney-Client Relationship Not Established Deliberative Process Objections - Privilege Not Properly Invoked Final Decision Exempted from Privilege Qualified Privilege Ove

70p

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS During the hearing on August 12, 2011, the Court directed the proposed intervenors to file additional briefing on their argument that plea negotiations are privileged and not subject to discovery or use as evidence in these proceedings. Proposed intervenors submit the following memorandum of law, which is identical to Parts I and II of the memorandum of law submitted by proposed intervenor Jeffrey Epstein in support of his motion for a protective order and his opposition to the motions of the plaintiffs for production, use,

23p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Donate More ways to support →

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.