Court records
- Format
- Set
- Court Records
- Text
- Searchable
Text as released
Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.
Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2010 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 10-80309-CIV-Marra/Johnson
JANE DOE No. 103,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFERY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
--------------'/
DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE
LIMITATION ON MOTION TO DISMISS, & FOR MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT & STRIKE DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF
JANE DOE NO. 103'S COMPLAINT (dated 2/23/20101
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves to
exceed the page limitation of20 pages imposed by Loe. Gen. Rule 7.1. C. 2. (S.D. Fla.),
in his response to Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 103 's Complaint, dated February 23, 2010.
In support of his motion, Defendant states:
1. Local Gen. Rule 7 .1 C. 2. provides in part that absent prior permission of the
court, no party shall file any legal memorandum exceeding twenty pages in length.
Defendant is in the process of preparing his response to Plaintiffs Complaint, (presently
due on March 26, 2010, but Plaintiff has agreed to an extension until April 5, 2010), and
the response will exceed the 20 page limitation. It is clear, based on the issues raised in
Plaintiffs Complaint that in excess of 20 pages is required to fully and adequately
respond to and discuss the issues raised. Defendant anticipates needing to exceed the
page limitation for his legal memorandum by 6 to 8 pages.
1
Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2010 Page 2 of 3
2. A length exceeding 20 pages is required so that Defendant may fully address the
issues raised in Plaintiffs Complaint whic
[…]