Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Date

Unknown

Source

DOJ Data Set 9

Reference

efta-efta00728590

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-80119-KAM Document 240 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. EFTA00728590 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 240 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 2 of 5 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 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 Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, 2 EFTA00728591 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 240 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 3 of 5 Defendants. DOE II, CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 102 CASE NO.: 09- 80656-CIV-MARRAJJOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records and Motion to Strike 3 EFTA00728592 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 240 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 4 of 5 C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory Damages (D.E. #216). For the following reasons said Motion is deferred to the United States District Court as the undersigned is without authority to grant the relief sought. The Response in Opposition, filed as part of the Motion, shall be considered by the undersigned when addressing Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order. By this Motion Plaintiff seeks two distinct forms of relief each of which, due to the nature of the relief sought, require a ruling by two different judges, the District Judge (regarding Motion to Strike C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory Damages) and the Magistrate Judge (regarding Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records ). This fact was brought to the attention of Plaintiff's counsel's office prior to filing of the instant motion, and for purposes of judicial efficiency and docket control, it was requested that instead of filing one motion seeking the dual relief sought here, Plaintiff instead file two separate motions. Rather than heed the Court's suggestion, however, Plaintiff's counsel has filed one motion seeking the dual relief described above, stating in a footnote "[tjhe Response in Opposition to the Motions for Protective Order and the Motion to Strike are inextricably woven together in that each deal with critical discovery issues. Thus the Response and the Motion to Strike must be handled simultaneously by the Court? Defs Resp. and Mtn., p.4 (emphasis added). Obviously what the Court "must" do is for the Court, and not any particular party, to decide. Decision-making is and always has been the exclusive province of a judge, while a party's role is limited to that of requesting relief. This is a fact all parties would do well to remember. Having reviewed the pleadings filed incident to this Motion, 4 EFTA00728593 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 240 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 5 of 5 and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records and Motion to Strike C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory Damages (D.E. #216) is DEFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, as the undersigned is without authority to grant the relief sought. Epstein's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order, filed as part of the Motion, shall be considered by the undersigned when addressing Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order. DONE AND ORDERED this August 4, 2009, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida. LINNEA R. JO ON UNITED STAT S MAGISTRATE JUDGE CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record 5 EFTA00728594

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

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

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

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.