EpsteinProject.org

Court records

048_6

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-80591-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 1 of 5




                         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA



  JANE DOE No. 101,
                                               Civil Action No. 09-80591-CIV-Marra/Johnson
                 Plaintiff,


  vs.

  JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

                 Defendant.
  ____________/
       PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO.101 'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
     AND PAGE LIMITS FOR RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
          THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
                     FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

         Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101 ("Plaintiff'), moves this Court for an order enlarging the time

  and page limits in which she must reply to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended

  Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement. The grounds for this motion are as

  follows:

          1.     Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint [DE 9] was filed on May 1, 2009.

          2.     Pursuant to an unopposed motion for enlargement, Defendant filed his Motion to

   Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement

  ( "Motion to Dismiss") on May 26, 2009. [DE 29] The Motion is 36 pages.

         3.      Ordinarily, a response to the Motion to Dismiss would be due on June 12, 2009. As

  it happens, however, the Court has set a hearing on that very day for all cases consolidated for

  discovery and procedural issues under the case known as Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Case

  No.09-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON.              Apparently the Court set the hearing as the result of
Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 2 of 5




  Defendant's seeking to stay/continue all civil cases pending against him and the Court's own inquiry

  as to whether the Defendant is in breach of the Non-Prosecution Agree

[…]

Open in the archive