Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of the right to make in camera submissions on the underlying Motion See Response DE at However in an abundance of caution Epstein seeks leave from Judge Marra to essentially re-file the redacted arguments related to the target offenses that have already been filed and submitted to Judge Johnson for an in-camera inspection See DE and The purpose of filing the redacted arguments is to tailor them to the instant Rule Appeal and to aid the Court in understanding the application of such arguments to the appeal as opposed to generally referring to prior arguments and leaving the Court with the task of connection the dots and going back and forth referencing prior orders and motions In her March Order DE Judge Johnson sua sponte allowed the in camera submissions provided by Epstein See DE at Now that Epstein is filing a Rule Appeal he is following the Courts direction and seeking approval from Judge Marra before filing the redacted arguments and providing same to the Court in-camera Again substantially all of the redacted arguments Epstein seeks to file are the same as arguments previously submitted in-camera and considered by Judge Johnson See DE and Moreover to the extent any of Epsteins arguments are considered new the Court has the discretion to entertain same See Williams McNeil F.3d I Ith Cir noting that the district court aclmowledged that it had discretion to consider Williams timeliness argument made for the first time in his appeal of the magistrate judges order citing United States Howell F.3d 9th Cir While some referencing on the Courts part will be necessary allowing the redacted filing will allow for better readership Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe Nos do not cite any authority for their contention that additional in camera submissions should not be allowed on appeal See Response DE at Instead they cite the Ninth Circuit Howell case which held that a Court has discretion to reject newly offered evidence in an appeal of a magistrate judges decision Plaintiffs advance no authority whatsoever for their position they instead concede Epsteins position that he has a right to make in camera submissions Simply put Epstein wants to ensure that in determining his Rule Appeal Judge Marra allows and considers the arguments previously submitted to Judge Johnson in-camera and filed in redacted format Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos concede that Epstein had the right to make in camera submissions on the underlying Motion See Response DE at Yet they also take the inconsistent position that Epstein should not be permitted to file redacted arguments because of the associated difficulty in responding to such arguments Id How can Plaintiffs concede that Epstein has the right to make in camera submissions in one breath and then argue that he should be not be permitted to do so in the next Epstein is not surprised by this inconsistent approach Plaintiffs caunot claim any prejudice resulting from Epstein filing redacted arguments since the filing of the same arguments in redacted form has already been approved by the Court and the Court has considered the rm-redacted arguments in camera See DE Despite Jane Does unsupported contention Epsteins Motion is not an attempt to run out the clock and block Jane Doe from obtaining discovery which is readily apparent from this timely reply Instead Epstein is merely protecting his Constitutional rights under the Fifth Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution as well as other rules of law The theme Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of and thrust is that Epstein must provide this information to the Court in redacted form to preserve his Fifth Amendment rights For the foregoing reasons Epstein requests that the Court grant his Motion DE and permit him to file redacted arguments and submit same in un-redacted form to the Court for in-camera review in connection with his Rule Appeals Defendant also respectfully requests that this Court provide in its order the procedure to follow for submitting in camera Rule Appeals for both Jane Doe and Jane Doe Nos as well as a reasonable deadline for submitting and filing same Respectfully submitted By s/Michael Pike ROBERT CRITTON JR ESQ Florida Bar No rcrit bclclaw.com 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 served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 16th day of April By s/Michael Pike 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 Phone Fax Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Certificate of Service Jane Doe No Jeffrey Epstein Case No 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart Mermelstein Esq Adam Horowitz Esq Mermelstein Horowitz P.A Biscayne Boulevard Suite Miami FL Fax ssm sexabuseattomey.com ahorowitz sexabuseattorney.com Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos Jack Alan Goldberger Esq Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian Avenue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax jagesg bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein Brad Edwards Esq Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman PL Andrews Avenue Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Fax brad pathtojustice.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No Paul Cassell Esq ProHac Vice South Room Salt Lake City UT Fax cassellp law.utah.edu Co-counsel for Plaint/ff Jane Doe Isidro Garcia Esq Garcia Law Firm P.A Datura Street Suite West Palm Beach FL isidrogarcia bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No Robert Josefsberg Esq Katherine Ezell Esq Podhurst Orseck P.A West Flagler Street Suite Miami FL Fax rjosefsberg podhurst.com kezell podhurst.com Counsel/or Plaintiffs in Related Case
6,006 characters
