Court Records
Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JANE DOE No. 101,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 09-80591-C1V-Marran
PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO.101'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
AND PAGE LIMITS FOR RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE.
FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101 ("Plaintiff), moves this Court for an order enlarging the time
and page limits in which she must reply to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement The grounds for this motion are as
follows:
1. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [DE 9] was filed on May 1, 2009.
2. Pursuant to an unopposed motion for enlargement, Defendant filed his Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement
( "Motion to Dismiss") on May 26, 2009. [DE 29] The Motion is 36 pages.
3. Ordinarily, a response to the Motion to Dismiss would be due on June 12, 2009. As
it happens, however, the Court has set a hearing on that very day for all cases consolidated for
discovery and procedural issues under the case known as Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Case
No.09-CV-80119-MARRa. Apparently the Court set the hearing as the result of
EFTA02738562
Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 2 of 5
Defendant's seeking to stay/continue all civil cases pending against him and the Court's own inquiry
as to whether the Defendant is in breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the Defendant
and the United States.
4. Under any circumstances, responding to Defendant's Motion would take more
than the usual time allotted under the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida, because of
its length, comprehensiveness and complexity. In this instance, however, the.fact and importance
of the hearing set for June 12°' is a further complication which will likely affect the substance of
Plaintiff's response, as well as its timing. Furthermore, Defendant's motion combines two motions
in one 36 page document. Plaintiff seeks leave to file an equal number of pages in response.
5. The issues raised by Defendant's Motion to Stay/Continue the Civil Cases Pending
Against Him and the Court's inquiry are intertwined with many of those issues that will necessarily
be involved in Plaintiff's response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. It would be a waste of the
time of the undersigned attorneys to prepare a response to the Motion to Dismiss and of the judicial
labor involved in reviewing it, when the response may be made obsolete, irrelevant or incomplete
on the very day it is due as the result of matters to be discussed at the hearing on June 12"..
6. This motion is not made for the purpose of delay and should be granted in the interest
of equity and fairness.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, requests an enlargement of time of up to 14
days and page limits of up to 36 pages in which she must reply to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the First Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement, so as to make
her reply due five (5) days after the Court issues its ruling resulting from the hearing set for June 12,
2009, or on June 26, 2009, whichever is later.
2
EFTA02738563
Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 3 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF HAVING CONFERRED WITH OPPOSING
COUNSEL PURSUANT TO S.D.L.R. 7.1.A.3
Katherine W. Ezell, one of the undersigned counsel for the Plaintiff hereby certifies that she
has conferred with one of the attorneys for the Defendant, Robert Critton, Esq. about the matters
raised in this Motion. Mr. Critton advised that the Defendant does not oppose the Motion or the
relief sought herein.
DATED this 9ih day of June, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
By: Robert C. Josefsberg
Robert C. Josefsberg,
Bar No. 040856
!Catherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, Florida 33130
([Phone Redacted]
([Phone Redacted] (fax)
[Email Redacted]
kezell®podhurst.eeM
Attorneys for Plaintiff
3
EFTA02738564
Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9" day of June, 2009, we electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List
either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other
authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically
Notices of Electronic Filing.
Respectfully submitted,
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: s/Robert C. Josefsberg
Robert C. Josefsberg
Fla. Br No. 040856
rjosefsbergepodhurst.com
Katherine W. Ezell
Fla. Bar No. 114771
kezellenodhurst.cor0
City National Bank Building
25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: ([Phone Redacted]
Facsimile: ([Phone Redacted]
4
EFTA02738565
Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 5 of 5
SERVICE LIST
JANE DOE NO. 101 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Case No. 08-CV-80591-
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Robert Critton Esq.
Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman LLP
515 North Hagler Drive, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
rcrit(abc1claw.com
Jack Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
jagesoabellsouth.net
Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq.
Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A.
250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: ([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
ecf©brucereinhartlaw.corn
Counsel for Co-Defendant, Sarah
5
EFTA02738566