Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO 09-CIV MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE Plaintiff JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant I DEFENDANT EPSTEINS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS COURTS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS WHY ALL CASES SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED FOR DISCOVERY PURPOSES AND MOTION TO CLARIFY THE COURTS ORDER DATED APRIL Defendant JEFFERY EPSTEIN EPSTEIN by and through his undersigned attorneys hereby files his Response in Opposition to this Courts Order to Show Cause as to Why All Cases Should Not be Consolidated for Purposes of Discovery and Motion for Clarification of this Courts Order on general consolidation of discovery DE and states I Response In Opposition Defendant has no further objections to consolidating these cases for purposes of depositions as outlined in this Courts April Order However to consolidate the cases for purposes of all discovery including but not limited to motion practice and related orders thereto will without question confuse many of the individual discovery issues raised not only by Epstein as to the individual Plaintiffs that have brought separate lawsuits against him but will also confuse the individual discovery issues raised by those same individual Plaintiffs as to Epstein This Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page2 will undoubtedly lead to several motions to clarify certain orders which will seek explanation from the court as to how those orders affect Epstein as to each individual Plaintiffs discovery requests and vice versa i.e how those future orders affect the individual Plaintiffs discovery requests directed to Epstein It is important to note that each related Federal matter before this court has its very own distinct set of facts and defenses thereto As such the discovery served and the responses received are particular and individualized as to both Plaintiff and Defendant As such discovery of all cases for general discovery consolidation separate and apart from depositions will only cloud rulings on discovery and will result in more attorney labor and judicial resources which will inevitably be spent on motions for clarification Each Plaintiff and Epstein have served and will in the future serve separate requests for production separate interrogatories separate requests for admissions and separate motions to compel responses and replies addressing certain discovery issues Obviously both Plaintiff and Defendant will base their discovery related arguments on the particularized facts of each case which are separate and distinct from one another Moreover the Plaintiffs will likely seek to retain different experts to support their individual claims In that regard how will a general consolidation of discovery impact discovery related to those experts individualized opinions As this court is aware certain case management orders are in place setting the parameters of discovery It is unclear how Plaintiffs Motion to Consolidate and the Courts Order will handle the potential problems and any other potential discovery related issues outlined above In fact it appears that Jane Doe in Case No Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page DE has expressed her own reasons for opposing the consolidation all the cases for discovery purposes Obviously Jane Does counsel like the undersigned anticipates that discovery issues will present themselves if general consolidation occurs and does not want it to impact her case In fact the debates have already begun in light of this Courts April Order and the responses filed addressing same This provides the court with a glimpse of what will occur if general consolidation occurs in particular how attorney resources and judicial resources will be unnecessarily used In addition the initial style of each case should be maintained in pleadings and in orders in an effort to maintain organization and application of the rulings this court espouses for each case Utilizing a compound multiple-type style will only confuse cases that should be kept separate for all discovery purposes II Motion for Clarification of this Courts April Order This Court ruled that cases and are consolidated for discovery purposes Epstein not only objects to the courts consolidation order but seeks clarification from this Court as to how consolidation of general discovery will impact motion practice and orders in the above cases What does the court mean when it says the above cases are consolidated for purposes of discovery only How does consolidation operate The concerns addressing general discovery consolidation are set out above and are therefore incorporated herein Likewise for those reasons the court should reverse its ruling on consolidation and issue a new order maintaining the individuality of each case for discovery purposes In addition Epstein not only objects to the courts potential consolidation of case numbers and for Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page4 general discovery purposes but respectfully requests that this court clarify how consolidation of general discovery will impact motion practice and orders in the above cases should this court choose to consolidate same for discovery Again how does consolidation operate The concerns addressing general discovery consolidation are set out above and are therefore incorporated herein In short the Motions seeking consolidation for discovery purposes only do not delineate how consolidation operates As such the Order granting the Motions to Consolidate for discovery purposes only does not provide any additional information addressing how consolidation will operate WHEREFORE Defendant requests that this Court not consolidate case numbers and that it clarify its order as to consolidation of case numbers and or the future consolidation of other cases and that it reverse its April ruling on general consolidation in light of the potential problems presented in this response that an order be entered requiring the parties to utilize the style secured by the initial case filing and not a compound-case style incorporating all case styles in one particular document and for such other and further relief a;Jtiis Court eems just and proper By MICHAEL PIKE ESQ Florida Bar 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 Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Page5 served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following service list in the manner specifie mission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this Jt day Isidro Garcia Esq Garcia Law Firm P.A Datura Street Suite West Palm Beach FL isidrogarcia bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger Esq Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian Avenue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax jagesg bellsouth.net Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectf JIV,u,9R1itted By ROBERT CRITTON JR ESQ Florida Bar No rcrit bclclaw.com MICHAEL PIKE ESQ Florida Bar mpike bclclaw.com BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER COLEMAN Flagler Drive Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
