Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00728672DOJ Data Set 9Other

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 369

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta00728672
Pages
2
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 369 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2009 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related Cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. ORDER This matter came before the Court on Defendant's, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Emergency Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs, Jane Doe 2-8', Second Motion for Protection Order, with 1 - 17 CkAA OOC- 2 -el scycwa ft--O-- rfneelike Incorporated Memorandum of Law., Having considered Defendant's firWicif it is HEREBY ,DOeS— ` A4 fl nicrifc PIO tAn CD' e'&41) ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: a. The deposition shall go forward on October 27, 2009. b. Epstein will not be in attendance at the deposition. c. Epstein will view the deposition from a video-feed in a separate room on the 14th floor of the building located at 250 Australian Ave., South, Suite 115, West Palm Beach, Florida. Plaintiff will be responsible for the associated costs of the video-feed (as another Plaintiff agreed to do without incident) d. Epstein will arrive at the building 1 hour before the deposition is set to begin at 11:00 a.m. on the above date. EFTA00728672 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 369 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2009 Page 2 of 2 Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein Page 2 e. Jane Doe 4's attorney will contact Epstein attorney by cellular telephone upon their arrival and, at that time, Epstein will be in the room where the video-feed monitor is located. f. Once the deposition is over, Epstein will remain located in the room where the video- feed monitor is located until such time as Jane Doe 4 and her attorney have exited the building, which her attorney will confirm by cellular telephone with the undersigned. :3, p O1.k tfrkl-R- •?Ad MO r,i3 {Tr Pro teef rr.p E .e -310,1) ). DONE and ORDERED this (2 .3 day of ( 72C-{"Okir.)---' , 2009. - / ed States Magistra udge L- R . 77, r,,,,s,D,A3 Courtesy Copies: Counsel of Record EFTA00728673

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 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01695623

0p
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

9p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01308033

23p
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 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01660122

0p

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.