Keyboard shortcuts

/
Search the files
j k
Move through a list of results
[ ]
Previous or next document
g g · G
Top or bottom of the page
Esc
Leave a search field or close this box
?
Show this box

Go to a page: g then

h
Index
t
Timeline
p
People
r
Redactions
x
Explore
w
News
l
Legislation
a
About

Court filing · Feb. 5, 2008

Epstein defense response to witness's motion for protective order, Feb. 2008

Jeffrey Epstein's defense response and related letter, subpoena, and deposition notice arguing a witness's protective order motion is moot after deposition scheduling.Machine-written summary

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 2006CF009454A

vs.

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

Defendant. _____/

SHARON R. BLACK PALM BEACH COUNTY CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT

2008 FEB - 8 PM 3:26

FILED

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

COMES NOW the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his attorney and files his response to the Motion For Protective Order filed by counsel for State’s witness Jane Doe No. 1.

  1. In summary fashion, counsel for Jane Doe No. 1 complains that serving a witness for deposition by the use of a process server and the service of the witness’ parents for the deposition to ensure service, amounts to “continuous and systematic harassment”. {sup}1

  2. The Motion For Protective Order was filed by one of the attorneys purporting to represent Jane Doe No. 1 in a separate civil proceeding.{sup}2 While disagreeing with the

6 FEB 14 ‘08 34A

{sup}1 Undersigned counsel for the Defendant responds only to the issues in the Motion for Protective Order concerning service of a subpoena for deposition and the date for that deposition. Defendant and undersigned counsel have no knowledge of any agent of the Defendant going to the witness’ place of employment representing “himself as an attorney who needed to contract (sp) her” as alleged “on information and belief” in paragraph 8 of the Motion for Protective Order.

{sup}2 The Motion for Protective Order was filed by attorney Theodore Leopold. While he purports to represent Jane Doe No.1, attorney Jeffrey Herman also claims to represent the interests of Jane Doe No. 1. In that separate civil proceeding, the two law firms are presently litigating who represents the interests of Jane Doe No. 1.

assertion in the Motion For Protective Order that Mr. Leopold and the undersigned agreed that Mr. Leopold would accept service on behalf of Jane Doe No. 1, and that the undersigned had agreed not to take the disposition on February 6, 2008, the matter has been rendered moot.

  1. Prior to filing of a Motion For Protective Order, Mr. Leopold and the undersigned conferred and agreed in writing with the consent of the State Attorney’s Office to the taking of Jane Doe No.1’s deposition on February 20, 2008. The parties have also agreed that Mr. Leopold will accept service for Jane Doe’s No.1’s appearance on that date eliminating the need to use a process server to serve Jane Doe No.1. See Exhibit “A” attached. (Jane Doe No. 1’s real name has been redacted from the exhibit.)

WHEREFORE, given the fact that the parties have agreed to a procedure for the taking of Jane Doe’s No.1’s deposition, it is respectfully requested that this Court deny Jane Doe No.1’s Motion for Protective Order as moot.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by mail to Lanna Belohlavek, Esquire, The Office of the State Attorney, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, Theodore J. Leopold, Esquire, 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, 33410 and Jeffrey Herman, Esquire, 18205 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218, Miami, Florida, 33160, on this 7th day of February, 2008.

ATTERBURY GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 A tralia ’ venu South Suit- 00 We Im ea h, F rida 33401 (56

K A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. orida Bar No.: 262013

February 5, 2008

VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL (561)697-2383

Theodore J. Leopold, Esquire Ricci—Leopold 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410

Re: State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein Case No.: 2006CF009454AXX

Dear Ted,

Based on your availability on February 20, Son that date beginning at 9:30 {sup}a committed to that date. ,*‘have scheduled the deposition of all, State Attorney, Latina Belohlavek, has also

You have indicated to me that yo Accordingly, I am enclosing th — for February 20, 2008 be service on behalf ofS for that date. of deposition and asubpoena for deposition for ng at 9:30 a.m.

R.ATTERBURY

’ I JACK A. GOLDBERGER

JASON S.WE1SS

Board Certified Criminal Trial Attorney {sup}IMember of New Jersey & Florida Bars

If you are unwilling/ or unable to produce Ms. S for deposition, please advise me immediately, so I ma ve her served with asubpoena.

Jack A. Goldberger

JAG/na Enclosure

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 2006CF009454AXX

vs.

SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

Defendant. _____/

TO: [REDACTED] a minor c/o Theodore J. Lepold, Esquire 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear before a person authorized by law to take depositions on the 4th floor (Rooms 4.2004-4.2010), of the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida on February 20, 2008 beginning at 9:30 a.m. for the taking of your deposition in this action. If you fail to appear, you may be in contempt of court.

You are subpoenaed to appear by the following attorneys and unless excused from this subpoena by these attorneys or the Court, you shall respond to this subpoena as directed.

WITNESS my hand and seal of said Court on this 5{sup}th day of February, 2008.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 2006CF009454AXX

vs. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. 41: 88k

/

TO: Lanna Belohlavek, Esquire Office of the State Attorney 401 N. Dixie Hwy West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

CO .1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the FI of Criminal Procedure that on February 20.2008 beginning at the hour of 9:30 A.111:41t aim Beach County Courthouse, 4’h Floor, 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beack. orida 33401: r

before Consor & Associates who is authorized ‘6y law to take depositions in the State of Florida, the Plaintiffs will, upon oral examination, talSa i depolition of the following named via telephone, to wit:

9:30 A.M. %

Such oral examination will tante from day to clay until completed. You are hereby notified to phone in and take part in sai x rtination as you may be advised, and as shall be fit and proper.

This deposition other purposes en for the purposes of discovery, for use as primary evidence or for such itted under the applicable Statutes or Rules of Court.

Y CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Taking Deposition has been furnished to~jhe above named addressee and Thedore J. Leopold, Esquire, 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 by via fax & mail this 5th day of February, 2008.

ATTERBURY, GO a BERGER, & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian A ue South, Suite 1400 Wes alm Beac , Florida 33401 (561 9-8300 fax. 835 691

JA f A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE F ida Bar No. 262013

Epstein defense response to witness's motion for protective order, Feb. 2008

Court filings

Jeffrey Epstein's defense response and related letter, subpoena, and deposition notice arguing a witness's protective order motion is moot after deposition scheduling.

Court Records: State of Florida v. Epstein (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. 50-2006-CF-009454) · Feb. 5, 2008

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 2006CF009454A vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. \ \ \ \ \ / SHARON R. BLACK PALM BEACH COUNTY CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT 2008 FEB - 8 PM 3:26 FILED RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER COMES NOW the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his attorney and files his response to the Motion For Protective Order filed by counsel for State's witness Jane Doe No. 1. 1. In summary fashion, counsel for Jane Doe No. 1 complains that serving a witness for deposition by the use of a process server and t…