EFTA02745623

Extracted Text #

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 240 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 1 of 5 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA 
JANE DOE NO. 3, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA 
JANE DOE NO. 4, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA 
JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA 
Plaintiff, 
VS. 
EFTA02745623

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 240 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 2 of 5 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 6, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA 
JANE DOE NO. 7, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA 
C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA 
Plaintiff, 
VS. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, 
EFTA02745624

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 240 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 3 of 5 
Defendants. 
DOE II, CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRAi 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, 
Defendants. 
JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRial 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 102 CASE NO.: 09-
80656-CIV-MARRAi 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
ORDER 
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Response in Opposition to 
Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records and Motion to Strike 
3 
EFTA02745625

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 240 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 4 of 5 
C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory Damages (D.E. 
#216). For the following reasons said Motion is deferred to the United States District Court 
as the undersigned is without authority to grant the relief sought. The Response in 
Opposition, filed as part of the Motion, shall be considered by the undersigned when 
addressing Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order. 
By this Motion Plaintiff seeks two distinct forms of relief each of which, due to the 
nature of the relief sought, require a ruling by two different judges, the District Judge 
(regarding Motion to Strike C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on 
Statutory Damages) and the Magistrate Judge (regarding Defendant's Response in 
Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records ). This 
fact was brought to the attention of Plaintiff's counsel's office prior to filing of the instant 
motion, and for purposes of judicial efficiency and docket control, it was requested that 
instead of filing one motion seeking the dual relief sought here, Plaintiff instead file two 
separate motions. 
Rather than heed the Court's suggestion, however, Plaintiffs counsel has filed one 
motion seeking the dual relief described above, stating in a footnote "[t]he Response in 
Opposition to the Motions for Protective Order and the Motion to Strike are inextricably 
woven together in that each deal with critical discovery issues. Thus the Response and the 
Motion to Strike must be handled simultaneously by the Court." Defs Resp. and Mtn., p.4 
(emphasis added). Obviously what the Court "must" do is for the Court, and not any 
particular party, to decide. Decision-making is and always has been the exclusive province 
of a judge, while a party's role is limited to that of requesting relief. This is a fact all parties 
would do well to remember. Having reviewed the pleadings filed incident to this Motion, 
4 
EFTA02745626

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 240 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 5 of 5 
and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereby 
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's 
Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records and Motion to Strike C.M.A.'s 
Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory Damages (D.E. #216) is 
DEFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, as the undersigned is without 
authority to grant the relief sought. Epstein's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion 
for Protective Order, filed as part of the Motion, shall be considered by the undersigned 
when addressing Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order. 
DONE AND ORDERED this August 4, 2009, in 
Florida. 
o 
LINNEA R. JO ON 
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
, at West Palm Beach, 
CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra 
All Counsel of Record 
5 
EFTA02745627