UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶
CASE NO. 10-80309-CIV-Marra¶
JANE DOE No. 103,¶
Plaintiff,¶
vs.¶
JEFFERY EPSTEIN,¶
Defendant.¶
DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION ON MOTION TO DISMISS, & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT & STRIKE DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 103'S COMPLAINT Idated 2/23/20101¶
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves to exceed the page limitation of 20 pages imposed by Loc. Gen. Rule 7.1. C. 2. (S.D. Fla.), in his response to Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 103's Complaint, dated February 23, 2010. In support of his motion, Defendant states:¶
-
Local Gen. Rule 7.1 C. 2. provides in part that absent prior permission of the court, no party shall file any legal memorandum exceeding twenty pages in length. Defendant is in the process of preparing his response to Plaintiff's Complaint, (presently due on March 26, 2010, but Plaintiff has agreed to an extension until April 5, 2010), and the response will exceed the 20 page limitation. It is clear, based on the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint that in excess of 20 pages is required to fully and adequately respond to and discuss the issues raised. Defendant anticipates needing to exceed the page limitation for his legal memorandum by 6 to 8 pages.
-
A length exceeding 20 pages is required so that Defendant may fully address the issues raised in Plaintiff's Complaint which attempts to assert six counts pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255. Under the constitutional guarantees of due process, including a fair and full opportunity to be heard, and in the interests of justice so that the Court may render a fully informed decision on the issue, Defendant is entitled to an order granting his motion to exceed the 20 page limitation in his response.
-
As certified below herein, Plaintiff's counsel agreed to the request to exceed 20 pages.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant Defendant's motion, and enter an order allowing a response in excess of 20 pages.¶
Local Rule 7.1 Statement¶
Counsel for the movant conferred with Counsel for the Plaintiff and Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested filing in excess of twenty pages in Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.¶
/s/ Michael J. Pike Robert D. Critton, Attorney for Defendant Epstein
¶
Certificate of Service¶
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 23rd day of March, 2010.¶
Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400¶
Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 rjosefsberg@podhurst.com kezell@podhurst.com Counsel for Plaintiff¶
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 iagestp,bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein¶
Respectfully submitted,¶
By: /s/ Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit@bc1claw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mpike@bciclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)¶