Skip to main content
Skip to content
gease joinKIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Case File
efta-efta00722194DOJ Data Set 9Other

DS9 Document EFTA00722194

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta00722194
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

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.
1-k J. MICHAEL BURMAN. P.A." GREGORY W. COLEMAN. PA ROBERT D. CRITION. IR. PA' BERNARD LEBEDEKER MARK T. LUTTIER. PA. EFFREY C. PEPIN MICHAEL J. PIKE. HEATHER MCNAMARA RUDA DAVID YAREMA IFUIRIDA ROAR° CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIM LAWYER TAIDAITTID TO PRACTICE IN FLORID. AND COLORADO BURMAN, CRITTON LUTTI ER &COLEMAN, LLP YOUR TRUSTED ADVOCATES A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP Sent by E-Mail and U.S. Mail Adam Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 October 14, 2009 Re: Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein Dear Adam: ADELQIR J. DENAVENTE PARALCGAVINVESTIGATOR JESSICA CADWELL BOBBIE AL MCKENNA ASHLIE STOKEN-BARING BETTY STOKES PARALEGALS RITA H. BUDNYK Or COUNSEL ED RICCI SPECIALn a=" I am in receipt of the e-mail that you sent me on October 13 responsive to my October 8, 2009 letter regarding Jane Doe #4's deposition. Clearly we are at an impasse. As I previously indicated, I think it is absurd, as a legal representative, to require or even ask me to consider having my client agree to a stipulation that would essentially bar him from ever deposing your client in a multi-million dollar lawsuit that she filed against him if some "unforeseen event" occurred. I am certain that if the situation were reversed, you would not agree to this either. I feel that I have provided you with every certainty that I can that your client will not "run into" Mr. Epstein on the day of her deposition (unless the court rules that he can attend). To date, we have taken the depositions of two plaintiffs that each lasted an entire day and at no time, not even on breaks, did anyone see Mr. Epstein. The only reason that the depositions are being scheduled in Mr. Epstein's building is simply because the video feed has been proven to work in this manner and Mr. Epstein is 14 floors above the actual room, preventing any "run-ins." All technological issues have been resolved and have worked without any problems whatsoever. As you know, the State court issued an Order dictating this procedure along with the splitting of the costs. One would think you would be more comfortable with Mr. Epstein being 14 floors above your client rather than in an adjacent room in another building viewing the deposition. 303 BANYAN BOULEVARD • SUITE 400 • WEST PALM BEACH. FL 33401 • PHONE: • FAX WWW.BCLCLAW.COM EFTA00722194

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

Domainwww.bclclaw.com

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

9p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01308033

23p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01695623

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos £t Lehrman, P.L. 'Ovid Pam ftoisl pet WWW.PATITTOJUSTKE.COM 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 4 00 "ti e 6.‘ tk i r atire CalkAllfle alvdtr aIINNEV rar ,NYTTENNINIP PITNEY 'OWES 02 !F $003 , 50 0 000i3V, wit JAN 2i 2,2!3 .a4P En M ZIP t20-12E 3330 Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafatia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00191396 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT EFTA00191397 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT MOTION TO SEAL Petitioners Jane Doc No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, joined by movants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, move to file the attached pleading and supporti

71p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 1 of 10

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.:08-CV-80736-ICAM JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO JOIN UNDER RULE 21 AND MOTION TO AMEND UNDER RULE 15 This cause is before the Court on Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4's Corrected Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action ("Rule 21 Motion") (DE 280), and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Protective Motion Pursuant to Rule 15 to Amend Their Pleadings to Conform to Existing Evidence and to Add Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 as Petitioners ("Rule 15 Motion") (DE 311). Both motions are ripe for review. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that they should be denied. I. Background This is an action by two unnamed petitioners, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, seeking to prosecute a claim under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 377

10p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

6p

Forum Discussions

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

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