EpsteinProject.org

Court records

011-01_3

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
Case    9:09-cv-80656-KAM
     9:08-cv-8            Document
              0811-KAM Docume       11-1Entered
                               nt 51-1   EnteredononFLSD
                                                     FLSDDocket
                                                          Docket03/24/2009 Page
                                                                 05/14/2009         of 15
                                                                            Page 11 of 24




                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                           CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON

    C.M.A.,

                       Plaintiff,
    v.
    JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH
    KELLEN,

                      Defendants,
    ---- ---- ---- --I
     Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion To Stay And Or Continue Action For Time Certain Based On
           Parallel Civil And Criminal Proceedings With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law

            Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his

     undersigned attorneys, hereby moves this Court for the entry of an order staying or continuing

     this action for a time certain (i.e., until late 2010 when the NP A expires), pursuant to the

     application of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the fact that a parallel

     proceeding is ongoing and being investigated. In support of his motion, EPSTEIN states:

                                           I.      Introduction

            At the outset, EPSTEIN notes this Court's prior Order, dated December 16, 2008,

     (Document 28), in which this Court denied a motion for stay brought by Defendant's prior

     counsel. In that instance, Defendant's counsel requested a mandatory stay under 18 U.S.C.A.

     §3509(k) which the court denied. In denying the request for the stay, this Court stated that a

     discretionary stay was not appropriate at t

[…]

Open in the archive