EFTA02746054

Extracted Text #

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 257 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2009 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, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
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. 
EFTA02746054

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 257 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2009 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, 
2 
EFTA02746055

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 257 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2009 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-MARa 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 102 CASE NO.: 09-
80656-CIV-MARRAi 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
AMENDED 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 
EFTA02746056

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 257 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2009 Page 4 of 5 
C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory Damages (D.E. #216 
in Case No. 08-80119). For the following reasons that portion of the Motion which seeks 
an order striking C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory 
Damages 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 Plaintiff's Motion for 
Protective Order. 
By this Motion Defendant seeks two distinct forms of relief each of which, due to the 
nature of the relief sought, requires a ruling and/or consideration 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 Defendant's counsel's office prior to 
the 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, 
Defendant instead file two separate motions. 
Rather than heed the Court's suggestion, however, Defendant's counsel has filed 
one motion seeking the dual relief described above, stating in a footnote "[title 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. (DE. 
#216), p.4 (emphasis added). Obviously what the Court "must" do is for the Court, and not 
for any particular party, to decide. Decision-making is and always has been the exclusive 
4 
EFTA02746057

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 257 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2009 Page 5 of 5 
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 
matter, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereby 
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the portion of Defendant's Motion seeking to 
Strike C.M.A.'s Conditional Notice of Intent to Rely Exclusively on Statutory Damages is 
DEFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, as the undersigned is without 
authority to grant the relief sought. That portion of Defendant's Motion containing a 
Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order Regarding Treatment 
Records shall be considered by the undersigned when addressing Plaintiff's Motion for 
Protective Order. 
DONE AND ORDERED this August 10, 2009, in 
Florida. 
at West Palm Beach, 
LINNEA R. JO ON 
UNITED STAT S MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra 
All Counsel of Record 
5 
EFTA02746058