EFTA00175476¶
Case 9:08-cv-8001-KAM Document 22 Entered FLSD Docket 09/2008¶
Page 1 of 4¶
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT¶
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶
CASE NO: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON¶
C.M.A.¶
PLAINTIFF¶
vs.¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN and¶
DEFENDANTS¶
| PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE |
| AND EXPEDITE CERTAIN DISCOVERY |
| WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM |
Plaintiff . moves, pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 to Preserve Evidence and Expedite the Discovery of this Evidence and states:¶
-
Defendants removed this action to federal court.
-
This case was recently reassigned to this division by the Honorable William Zloch.
-
This is one of several cases pending in this division which alleges sexual abuse of a female minor by the defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
-
It has come to the attention of the undersigned that Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN filed a Motion with the Florida State Court to return the evidence seized at his home in conjunction with his criminal prosecution. With respect to the details of EPSTEIN’s motion, Plaintiff respectfully requests this court to take
EFTA00175477¶
Case 9:08-cv-80C, 1-KAM¶
Docum…t 22¶
Entered C… FLSD Docket 09… J/2008¶
Page 2 of 4¶
judicial notice of a similar motion and its attachments filed at Docket Entry 12 in the separate case filed in this court by the name of JANE DOE, a/k/a. JANE DOE NO. 1 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al. Case NO. 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON¶
-
This evidence is relevant and critical to the prosecution of not only the instant claim, but for other suits filed against Defendant EPSTEIN, including but not limited to the Florida RICO claims filed in State Court.
-
As stated in the certificate, the undersigned has conferred with counsel for EPSTEIN. They take the position that this motion would be moot because of an order recently entered in JANE DOE, a/k/a. JANE DOE NO. 1 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al. Case NO. 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON. However, respectfully believes that an enforceable order is needed in this particular case. In addition, she requests a more detailed order which includes all of the numerous law firms representing the defendants EPSTEIN and
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request the Court grant her Motion to Preserve of all the seized Evidence identified in the Palm Beach Police Department Property Receipt attached to the Motion to Preserve Evidence filed at Docket Entry #12 in the case of JANE DOE, a/k/a. JANE DOE NO. 1 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al. Case NO.08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON shou1d it be Returned to EPSTEIN by the State Court, and expedite the duplication of this evidence immediately upon its return, in advance of any Rule 26 conference.¶
EFTA00175478¶
Case 9:08-cv-80C, 1-KAM¶
Entered c…LSD Docket 09, J/2008¶
Page 3 of 4¶
MEMORANDUM OF LAW¶
Pursuant to Rules 26, 30 and 34, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court has the authority to modify the normal time limitations under the Rules. See AT&T Mobility LLC v. Dynamic Cellular Corp., 2008 WL 2139518 (S.D. Fla. 2008); see also Trac/one Wireless, Inc. v.King Trading, Inc., 2008 WL 918243 (N.D. Tex. 2008). Additionally, when there is a good faith belief that evidence may be lost the Court has the authority to enter an Order preserving such evidence. Id. at 1. An injunction is not required nor are the elements of an injunction necessary before entering an Order preserving such evidence. Id. at 2.¶
Given that Defendant EPSTEIN has plead guilty and is currently serving a year in jail based on the charges which form the foundation Plaintiffs (and many other Plaintiffs’) claims, it is reasonable to assume the State’s seized evidence is extremely harmful to Defendant EPSTEIN.¶
As a result, without a Protective Order Defendant EPSTEIN has no reason to keep or maintain this negative evidence; Plaintiff has put Defendant EPSTEIN on notice that this evidence is relevant to the instant action and any destruction could potentially constitute spoliation. If this evidence were destroyed Plaintiff would be severely prejudiced.¶
Dated: September 6, 2008¶
Respectfully submitted,¶
By: s/Richard H. Willits¶
| Richard H. Willits(FL Bar No. 139888) | ||
| RICHARD H.WILLITS,P.A. | Attorney for Plaintiff | |
| 2290 10thAve.North,Suite404 | Tel: | Fax:561-582-7600 |
EFTA00175479¶
Case 9:08-cv-801-KAM Document 22 Entered FLSD Docket 09/2008¶
Page 4 of 4¶
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1¶
I hereby certify that I conferred with opposing counsel by telephone on August 7, 2008 concerning a good faith effort to resolve the Motion to Stay, and they oppose the motion on the ground that it would be moot.¶
s/Richard H. Willits¶
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶
I hereby certify that on September 6, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.¶
s/Richard H. Willits¶