EFTA00234804.pdf
PDF not loading? Open directly | View extracted text
📄 Extracted Text (783 words)
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant
/
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO "CONSOLIDATION" OF CASES AND OBJECTING
TO CONSOLIDATION OF DEPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANT AND TO ANY
DELAY IN CURRENTLY PENDING DISCOVERY
COMES NOW plaintiff Jane Doe No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff' in this
pleading), by and through her undersigned counsel, to respond in opposition to consolidating her
case with other cases for discovery purposes. The Court should deny consolidation, without
prejudice to Jane Doc No. 3 re-filing the motion with more specific information about what the
consolidation would entail.
As the Court is aware, there is currently a case management order in place in this case
(DE 20), which sets the parameters of discovery. Jane Doe No. 3 (and, apparently, several other
Jane Does represented by the same counsel) have filed a motion to consolidate their pending
cases with Plaintiff's case. The only articulated concern of these persons was to avoid multiple -
and harassing - depositions about sexual abuse. That concern has now been obviated by the
Court's entry of an order (DE 43) limiting depositions of each of the Jane Does. It is therefore,
unclear what Jane Due Nu. 3 specifically hopes to further accomplish by consolidation.
Moreover, it is unclear to what extent consolidation would alter the existing case management
EFTA00234804
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 2 of 4
CASE NO: 08-CV-8089.3-MARRAMOHNSON
order in this case. This confusion is compounded by the fact that Jane Doe No. 3 did not
(apparently contrary to the local rules) provide any proposed order that she wished the Court to
enter granting specific relief on consolidation.
Plaintiff is particularly concerned about two possible ramifications of "consolidation."
First. Plaintiff is concerned that she be given her own, individual opportunity to depose Epstein
about the abuse that he perpetrated against her and about the other aspects of her own, individual
case. Jane Doe No l's consolidation motion appears to envision consolidating 10 cases
together, involving ten minor girls who each allege separate and specific acts of sexual abuse by
Epstein against each of them over several years. If Plaintiff is given only one-tenth of a one-day
deposition to ask questions about her particular case, then her ability to gather relevant evidence
will he severely and unfairly limited. She will barely have enough time (assuming time is
allocated pro rata) to ask about the acts of sexual abuse -- let alone the many other aspects of the
case that she needs to explore to be prepared for trial. These problems arc compounde
d by the
fact that Plaintiff's legal theories and factual assertions are, in significant respects, different from
those of other Jane Does and their separate legal counsel.
Second, Plaintiff is concerned that any consolidation not serve as a basis for delay by
Epstein in answering her interrogatories, requests for production, and requests fur admission
that
Plaintiff has properly served on him. Any delay would serve to severely prejudice Plaintiff.
For all these reasons, the Court should deny the motion for consolidation without
prejudice. Jane Doe No. 3 could then re-file the motion with more specific information about
how the consolidation would operate and how it would affect the existing case managemen
t
order.
2
EFTA00234805
Case 9 08-cv-80893-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 3 of 4
CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRAMOHNSON
DATED this 4th day of May, 2009.
Respectfully Submitted,
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER
By: s/ Brad Edwards
Rrad Edwards, Esquire
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Florida Bar No. 542075
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954-522-3456
Facsimile: 954-527-8663
E-Mail:
Paul a Cassell
Attorney for Plaintiff
Pro Hac Vice
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone: 801-585-5202
Facsimile: 801-585-6833
E-Mail: liall IIMMI
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on 4th day of May, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.
3
EFTA00234806
Case 9 08-cv-80893-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 4 of 4
CASE NO: 08-C V-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
SERVICE LIST
Jane Doe, Plaintiff vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant
Case No.: OR-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
United States District Court, Southern District ofFlorida
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esquire
Atterburty, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire
Michael J. Pike, Esquire
Burman, Critton, Lunier & Coleman, LLP
515 North Flagler Drive
Suite 400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
si Brad Edwards
Brad Edwards, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 542075
HAs*Tdocs'09.2278a Wild v Epsiciffiresponse to orda to show cause-cps:cm rinoi.dov
4
EFTA00234807
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant
/
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO "CONSOLIDATION" OF CASES AND OBJECTING
TO CONSOLIDATION OF DEPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANT AND TO ANY
DELAY IN CURRENTLY PENDING DISCOVERY
COMES NOW plaintiff Jane Doe No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff' in this
pleading), by and through her undersigned counsel, to respond in opposition to consolidating her
case with other cases for discovery purposes. The Court should deny consolidation, without
prejudice to Jane Doc No. 3 re-filing the motion with more specific information about what the
consolidation would entail.
As the Court is aware, there is currently a case management order in place in this case
(DE 20), which sets the parameters of discovery. Jane Doe No. 3 (and, apparently, several other
Jane Does represented by the same counsel) have filed a motion to consolidate their pending
cases with Plaintiff's case. The only articulated concern of these persons was to avoid multiple -
and harassing - depositions about sexual abuse. That concern has now been obviated by the
Court's entry of an order (DE 43) limiting depositions of each of the Jane Does. It is therefore,
unclear what Jane Due Nu. 3 specifically hopes to further accomplish by consolidation.
Moreover, it is unclear to what extent consolidation would alter the existing case management
EFTA00234804
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 2 of 4
CASE NO: 08-CV-8089.3-MARRAMOHNSON
order in this case. This confusion is compounded by the fact that Jane Doe No. 3 did not
(apparently contrary to the local rules) provide any proposed order that she wished the Court to
enter granting specific relief on consolidation.
Plaintiff is particularly concerned about two possible ramifications of "consolidation."
First. Plaintiff is concerned that she be given her own, individual opportunity to depose Epstein
about the abuse that he perpetrated against her and about the other aspects of her own, individual
case. Jane Doe No l's consolidation motion appears to envision consolidating 10 cases
together, involving ten minor girls who each allege separate and specific acts of sexual abuse by
Epstein against each of them over several years. If Plaintiff is given only one-tenth of a one-day
deposition to ask questions about her particular case, then her ability to gather relevant evidence
will he severely and unfairly limited. She will barely have enough time (assuming time is
allocated pro rata) to ask about the acts of sexual abuse -- let alone the many other aspects of the
case that she needs to explore to be prepared for trial. These problems arc compounde
d by the
fact that Plaintiff's legal theories and factual assertions are, in significant respects, different from
those of other Jane Does and their separate legal counsel.
Second, Plaintiff is concerned that any consolidation not serve as a basis for delay by
Epstein in answering her interrogatories, requests for production, and requests fur admission
that
Plaintiff has properly served on him. Any delay would serve to severely prejudice Plaintiff.
For all these reasons, the Court should deny the motion for consolidation without
prejudice. Jane Doe No. 3 could then re-file the motion with more specific information about
how the consolidation would operate and how it would affect the existing case managemen
t
order.
2
EFTA00234805
Case 9 08-cv-80893-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 3 of 4
CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRAMOHNSON
DATED this 4th day of May, 2009.
Respectfully Submitted,
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER
By: s/ Brad Edwards
Rrad Edwards, Esquire
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Florida Bar No. 542075
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954-522-3456
Facsimile: 954-527-8663
E-Mail:
Paul a Cassell
Attorney for Plaintiff
Pro Hac Vice
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone: 801-585-5202
Facsimile: 801-585-6833
E-Mail: liall IIMMI
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on 4th day of May, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.
3
EFTA00234806
Case 9 08-cv-80893-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 4 of 4
CASE NO: 08-C V-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
SERVICE LIST
Jane Doe, Plaintiff vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant
Case No.: OR-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON
United States District Court, Southern District ofFlorida
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esquire
Atterburty, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire
Michael J. Pike, Esquire
Burman, Critton, Lunier & Coleman, LLP
515 North Flagler Drive
Suite 400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
si Brad Edwards
Brad Edwards, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 542075
HAs*Tdocs'09.2278a Wild v Epsiciffiresponse to orda to show cause-cps:cm rinoi.dov
4
EFTA00234807