EpsteinProject.org

Court records

029_9

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 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2010 Page 1 of 9



                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                          CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON

     JANE DOE NO. 2,

             Plaintiff,
     vs.                                                                       JUN f 4 2010
     JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

             Defendant.
                                                   I
     - ---------------
     Related cases:
     08-80232,08-08380,08-80381,08-80994,
     08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
     09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
                                                   I
     ----------------
       Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Emergency Motion For Protective Order, Motion to
       Quash and Motion for Attorneys' Fees, With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law

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

     undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Emergency Motion For Protective Order, Motion

     to Quash and Motion for Attorneys' fees and Costs, With Incorporated Memorandum Of

     Law. In support, Defendant states as follows:

           1. As this Court is well aware, these cases have been consolidated for discovery.

      However, on April 1, 2010, Plaintiffs counsel, Spencer Kuvin, filed C.L. v. Epstein,

      Case No. 10-80447-cv-Marra/Johnson, and that case has not been consolidated with the

      other related cases for purposes of discovery.

           2. On April 20, 2010, Mr. Kuvin served Maritza Milagros Vasquez with a subpoena

      for deposition, which is set to occur tomorrow. See Exhibit "A". However, this Notice

      and subpoena for deposition must be stricken/quashed as Mr. Kuvin, on behalf of his

      client, has failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 (d). That rule states, in pertinent part,
    Case 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLS

[…]

Open in the archive