EpsteinProject.org

Court records

008_14

Format
pdf
Set
Court Records
Text
Searchable

View at the original source

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 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/08/2008 Page 1 of 5




                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                    CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON

 JANE DOE, a/k/a
 JANE DOE #1,

       Plaintiff,

 vs.

 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, HALEY ROBSON,
 and SARAH KELLEN,

      Defendants.
 ____________________________________/

                   DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S
              OPPOSED MOTION TO ALIGN RESPONSE DATE

       Defendant Jeffrey Epstein moves, pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(A), to align

 the deadline for filing his response to the complaint with the deadlines set in Jane

 Doe Nos. 2 through 5 of September 4, 2008, and as grounds for this relief,

 respectfully states as follows:

       1.     This matter was removed to Federal Court on July 21, 2008. (DE 1).

       2.     On July 25, 2008, Mr. Epstein filed a motion to stay this action. (DE

 4 & 5).

       3.     That same day, Mr. Epstein moved for an enlargement of time to

 answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until ten days after the motion for

 stay was decided. (DE 3).

                             3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/08/2008 Page 2 of 5




       4.     On August 6, 2008, this Court denied the motion for stay. (DE 7).

       5.     This Court has not yet ruled upon Mr. Epstein’s motion for an

 enlargement of time.

       6.     In a series of substantially identical lawsuits brought against Mr.

 Epstein, however, this Court - - upon the denial of motions for stay filed in those

 cases - - granted Mr. Epstein an additional ten days to respond to the complaints

 nunc pro tunc. Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, No. 08-CV-80119-KAM (S.D. Fla.)

 (DE 33); Jane Doe No. 3 v. Epstein, No. 08-CV-80232-KAM (S.D. Fla.) (DE 29);

 Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein, No. 08-CV-80380-KAM (S.D. Fla.) (DE 39); and Ja

[…]

Open in the archive