Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00727592DOJ Data Set 9Other

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta00727592
Pages
5
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.
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 185-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2009 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. 1 EFTA00727592 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 185-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2009 Page 2 of 5 JANE DOE NO. 6, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08- CV-80811 -MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., Defendant. DOE H, CASE NO.: 08-CV- 80469-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, 2 EFTA00727593 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 185-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 0702/2009 Page 3 of 5 vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al., Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80656-MARRABOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. STIPULATED HIPAA OUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Joint Motion of the parties, Jane Doe No. 2, Jane Doe No. 3, Jane Doe No. 4, Jane Doe No. 5, Jane Doe No. 6, Jane Doe No. 7 and Jane Doe No. 8 (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, for a HIPAA Qualified Protective Order, and the Court having being duly advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. General. In accordance with the requirements of the regulations promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), specifically 45 C.F.R. §164.512 (e) (1) (ii) (B) & (v), the Court issues a HIPAA Qualified Protective Order, as the term is defined in the foregoing regulations, and for health information of the Plaintiffs obtained in discovery requires that all parties be: 3 EFTA00727594 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 185-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07;02/2009 Page 4 of 5 a. prohibited from using or disclosing protected health information ("PHI") for any purpose other than the litigation of the following cases: Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein, case no. 08-CV-80119, Jane Doe No. 3 v. Jeffrey Epstein, case no. 08-CV- 80232, Jane Doe No. 4 v. Jeffrey Epstein case no. 08-CV-80380, Jane Doe No. 5 v. Jeffrey Epstein case no. 08-CV-80381, Jane Doe No. 6 v. Jeffrey Epstein case no. 08-CV-80994, Jane Doe No. 7 v. Jeffrey Epstein, case no. 08- CV-80993, and Jane Doe No. 8 v. Jeffrey Epstein case no. 09-CV-80802, and any other state or federal lawsuits against Jeffrey Epstein alleging similar sexual misconduct (hereafter, the "Lawsuits"); and b. required to return to the disclosing entity or destroy the PHI (including all copies made), at the conclusion of the litigation of the Lawsuits. Based upon this HIPAA Qualified Protective Order all persons, including but not limited to physicians and other medical providers, shall comply with, and are hereby authorized to use or disclose PHI in response to, any and all subpoenas for records. This HIPAA Qualified Protective Order applies to PHI received pursuant to subpoena or discovery in the Lawsuits. It further applies to all notes, opinions and other documents of psychological experts retained by any of the parties for purposes of the Lawsuits. 2. Depositions. In addition to the foregoing, pursuant to 45 C.F.R. §164.512 (e) (1) (I) and for purposes of compliance with HIPAA, without waiver of any right to prepayment of costs, fees and expenses associated with copying costs, or any other appropriate objection or privilege that may be timely asserted, each deponent duly noticed for deposition in the above- style litigation, including but not limited to a party, a fact witness, a records custodian, an expert, a treater, or a health care provider of any type, is expressly and specially authorized to use or to disclose to the attorneys, employees, agents, and designees of each party or each party's legal counsel in this case the protected health information of a party that is responsive to deposition questions or a valid duces tecum at such duly noticed deposition with both HIPAA regulations and any applicable state law not pre-empted by HIPAA, the authorization and order set forth in this paragraph expressly includes protected health information concerning psychological and mental records. 3. Experts, Litigation Consultants, and Attorneys. This Protective Order does not prevent disclosure of PHI to the parties' litigation experts, Plaintiffs' and Defendant's lawyers, and consultants hired for purposes of the Lawsuits, subject to the prohibitions and requirements of paragraph 1 above. 4. Judicial Proceedings. In addition to the foregoing, pursuant to 45 C.F.R. §I64.512 (e) (1) (i) and for purposes of compliance with HIPAA, without waiver of any right to prepayment of costs, fees, and expenses associated with copying costs, or any other appropriate objection or privilege that may be timely asserted, all witnesses duly appearing at, or subpoenaed for, any judicial proceeding related to this litigation, including but not limited to trial, are specifically and expressly authorized to use and disclose the PHI of a party at such judicial proceeding. In compliance with both HIPAA regulations and any applicable state law not pre- 4 EFTA00727595 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 185-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07)02/2009 Page 5 of 5 empted by HIPAA, the authorization set forth in this paragraph expressly includes protected health information concerning psychological and mental health records. 5. Court Reporter, Photocopying & Other Service Providers. In addition to the foregoing, pursuant to 45 C.F.R. §164.512 (e) (1) (I) and for purposes of compliance with HIPAA, without waiver of any right to prepayment of costs, fees and expenses associated with copying costs, or other appropriate objection or privilege that may be timely asserted, any person or entity authorized or ordered above to use or disclose PHI is expressly and specifically authorized to do so with, to, or before any court reporter service, videography service, translation service, photocopy service, document management service, records management service, graphics service or other such litigation service, designated by a party or a party's legal counsel in this case. The protections and requirements of paragraph No. 1 above specifically apply to any such service so designated. Each party or the party's legal counsel is charged with giving notice of the obligations imposed by this Order to any such service the party or counsel so designates, and is further charged with obtaining advance consent of such service to comply fully with this paragraph. Upon such consent, the service will be deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the Court's jurisdiction during the pendency of this litigation for purposes of enforcement of this paragraph, including but not limited to the imposition of such sanctions, monetary or otherwise, as may be appropriate for any non-compliance. 6. Expiration. Unless a motion for enforcement of this Order has been filed in this case and remains pending at the time, this Order shall expire upon the conclusion of the Lawsuits by any final resolution including dismissal or by final judgment, through and including all appellate proceedings, unless the time for commencing such proceedings has expired without an appeal. This Order is effective nunc pro tunc as of the date of commencement of each of the Lawsuits. It is self-executing without need of further order of the Court. A copy of this Order shall be valid as an original. DONE AND ORDERED this day of July, 2009. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Copies furnished to: All counsel of record. 5 EFTA00727596

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

Case #9:08-CV-80119-KAM

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05:14:2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, EFTA00222605 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 2 of 4 Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plain

4p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

(USAFLS)

(USAFLS) From: Roy Black < Sent: Wednesda , Februa 11, 2015 8:50 AM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Your phone call Great. Speak to you then. Original Message From: (USAFLS) Imailt Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:49 AM To: Roy Black Subject: Re: Your phone call Hi Roy. Thanks for your message. Dexter wants to participate in the call so it is helpful to have a roadmap of the discussion points. We will call your office at 2:00. If there is a better number to call, just shoot me an email. Talk to you soon. Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 On Feb 10, 2015, at 7:35 PM, "Roy Black" < mailto: wrote: Marie I was not calling you about the correspondence so don't worry about that. I called you to discuss the plaintiff's replies filed as dockets 310 and 311. We think there are serious misstatements by them in these pleadings. So I just wanted to let you know what our suggested responses are.

389p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01308033

23p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Reply In Support Of Iler Objections to tnsealinu Sealed Materials Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue EFTA00074964 Ca_QatIgt24743tictoWneDbtOrfiefiVIMOXIle?BOWERKVaffizte12401 22 Introduction This Court asked the parties to brief three issues: "(a) the weight of presumption of public access that should be afforded to an item, (b) the identification and weight of any countervailing interests supporting continued sealing/redaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item." DE 1044 at 1. Plaintiff and the Miami Herald's responses improperly afford the highest level of presumption to discovery dispute documents, deny that any co

40p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 206 Entered on FLSD Docket 0716/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, EFTA00214072 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 206 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2009 Page 2 of 4 Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plai

4p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Document alleges Alexander Acosta’s involvement in Jeffrey Epstein plea deal and potential immunity for co‑conspirators

The passage links a former U.S. Labor Secretary (Alexander Acosta) to the negotiation of Epstein’s 2007 non‑prosecution agreement, suggesting possible misconduct and abuse of power. It also mentions A Acosta personally involved in negotiations of Epstein’s 2007 plea deal granting immunity from federa Deal included a 13‑month private jail sentence for Epstein in exchange for cooperation. Acosta lat

4p

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.