UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO Pl-3ai-3nt-3i-3ff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant PLAINTIFF 2S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST PIECEMEAL DEPOSITIONS AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY 2778Plaintiff by and through undersigned counsel files this Reply Mem8o1randum8 In Support of Mot-4i-4on for-4 Pr-4ot-4ect-4i-4v-2e Or-4der-4 Agai-4nst-4 Piecem11eal Depos itions and Motion to Consolidate for Purposes of Discovery as follows CONFUSION THAT WO ULD MILITATE AGAINST CONSOLIDATING THESE CASES FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY response to Plaintiffs Motion to Consolid ate Defendant asserts that not all com9m9on issues of fact are present and the parties ar not identical These are not reasons to deny consolidation particularly the lim9ited consolidation for purposes of discovery sought here Rule a Fed.R.Civ.P requires only a com8m8on question of law or fact and there need not be an identity of parties Defendant also asserts wit hout support or explanation that 223conf4usion w3ill result and m9o1tions in lim9ine will undoubted ly be filed In Ram8s-1ay Broward County Sheriff 2s Offi-4ce Fed Appx W9L1 11th Cir the Court affirm9ed the District In a case relied upon by Defendant Kelly Kelly F.Supp N.D.N.Y the issue was consolidation for purposes of joint trial so that case is inapposite he re Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Court 2s consolidation of two em9ploym9ent discri m9i-1nation actions noting that the party opposing consolidation 223has f4ailed to show that the district court abused its discreti on by consolidating the tw5o actions insofar as she has introduced no evidence establishing confusion or prejudice Id at risk of confusion or prejudice is generally m9o1re likely to arise when there is consolidation for purposes of trial which is not being sought in the pr esent cases at this tim9e See Hendrix Raybestos Manhattan Inc F.2d 11th Cir Here the com)8m8on and overlapping m9o1tion practice in these cases attests to the efficiencies to be gained by consolidating for purposes of discovery Additi onally these cases are on the sam9e or sim9ilar discovery tracks so there would be no prejudice or confusion arising from9 the cases being at different stages of litigation See Borough of Olyphant P6P6L5 C6o4rp Fed Appx W9L1 3d Cir a case cited by Defendant the Court noted that it has discretion to deny a m9o1tion to consolidate it would cause delay in one of the cases or if one of the cases is further into discovery than the other case see also Ford Motor Credit Co Chiorazzo F.Supp 2d D.N.J denying consolidation of two actions because discovery was nearly com9p1lete in one while the other was in its prelim9inary stages is within this Court 2s broad discretion to consolidate 223Rule a is a codification of a trial court 2s inherent m9anagerial power ontrol disposition of the causes on its docket with econom8y of tim8e and effort for itself for counsel and for litigants Hendrix F.2d at citation om9itted Given the nature of)4 these cases the com9m9on f4acts alleged and the com9m9on issues of law consolidation for purposes of discovery ould be in the interests of judicial econom9y and efficiency Defendant fails to set forth anything to the contrary Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of II THERE SHOULD BE ONLY ONE DEPOSITION FOR EACH PLAINTIFF response to Plaintiff 2s Motion for Prot ective Order to lim9it Defendant to a single deposition of each Plaintiff Defendant fails to set forth any reas3o4n4 w6h4y4 it n4eed4s3 to4 ta3k4e2 tw6o4 s3e2p4a2rate depositions of each Plaintiff Defendant asserts th at it has the right to take both party depositions and witness depositions which Plaintiff does not dis pute W10h1ere the sam9e person is both party and in related cases however it m9akes em9inent sense that there should be only one deposition of that person The Court 2s authority to grant a protec tive order in this regard falls squarely within Rule which allows such an order to be issued to protect a party from)9 annoyance em9barrassm9ent oppression or undue burden or expe nse The unnecessary burden and harassm9ent that would arise from8 m8o1re than one deposition of a plaintiff/victim9 in these cases is patent and obvious particularly since these cases concern sensitive fact issues of sex with m9i-1nors opposition to the Motion D5e2f6e ndant m9akes a vague ref4erence to 223proper preparation but f4ails to articulate how its preparation will be prej udiced or otherwise adversely af4f4ected by a single deposition of each Plaintiff To the contrary separate depositions would create an artificial awkward dividing line between which questions are of the deponent as a itness and which are of the deponent as a party likely giving rise to unnece ssary disputes and m9o1tion practice Given the com9m9on and overlapping facts in these cases ther is no reason why a party witness cannot be questioned in a single sitting on all f4acts pertinen to Epstein A protective order is theref4ore warranted in these cases so that each Plaintiff has her deposition taken only once Conclusion Defendant offers as a 223com9p1rom9i-1se to lim9it each Plaintiff to two depos itions This would not pr-4obl-4e-3m6 a-3nd c-3o-2ncern rais ed in the Motion Defendant fails to proffer any reason why it is necessary to take two separate depositions of the sam9e witness Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of 2690Based on the foregoing and for the reasons se forth in Plaintiff 2s Motion for Protective Order Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion to onsolidate for purposes of discovery Plaintiff respectfully requests an Order i consolidating these cases for purpo ses of discovery ii lim)9iting the Defendant to a single deposition of each Plainti ff and i such other and further relief this Court deem9s just and proper Dated April 2750Respectfully subm8itted By Stuart Merm9elstein Stuart Merm8elstein FL Bar No ssm9 sexabuseattorney.com Adam8 Horowitz FL Bar No ahorowitz sexabuseattorney.com MERMELSTEIN HOROW8ITZ P.A Attorneys for Plaintiff Biscayne Blvd Suite Miam9i Florida Tel Fax Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April I electroni cally filed the foregoi ng docum9ent w4ith the Clerk of the Court using I also certify that the foregoing docum9ent is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the m9anner specified either via transm9ission of Notices of Filing generated by CM/ECF or in som9e other authorized m9anner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electr onically Notices of Electronic Filing Stuart Merm9elstein Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of SERVICE LIST DOE vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court 2Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger Esq jgoldberger agwpa.com Robert Critton Esq rcritton bclclaw.com Stuart Merm8elstein Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of
6,990 characters
