EFTA02746080

Extracted Text #

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 260 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 1 of 6 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA I 
JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA I 
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. 
EFTA02746080

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 260 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 2 of 6 
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, 
EFTA02746081

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 260 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 3 of 6 
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. 
OMNIBUS ORDER 
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the following motions: Plaintiff CMA's Motion 
for Protective Order Re Treatment Records (D.E. #207); Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File 
3 
EFTA02746082

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 260 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 4 of 6 
Affidavit of Plaintiff (D.E. #213); Plaintiff CMA's Emergency Motion for Protective Order 
Regarding the Deposition of Serge Thys (D.E. #245); and, Plaintiffs Request for 
Emergency Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (D.E. #250). Having reviewed 
the pleadings filed incident to these matters, and being otherwise duly advised in the 
premises, it is hereby 
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS: 
(1) Plaintiff CMA's Motion for Protective Order Re Treatment Records (D.E. #207) 
is STRICKEN AS MOOT in that Plaintiff has notified the Court in her Reply (D.E. #255) of 
her withdrawal of the motion; 
(2) Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Affidavit of Plaintiff (D.E. #213) is GRANTED; 
(3) Plaintiff CMA's Emergency Motion for Protective Order Regarding the 
Deposition of Serge Thys (D.E. #245) is DENIED. By this Motion Plaintiff seeks a 
protective order to prevent the deposition of Dr. Serge Thys, presently scheduled for 
August 31, 2009, from going forward. For the reasons stated in Judge Marra's Order of 
August 5, 2009, dealing with the nearly identical issue, said motion as it relates to Dr. Thys, 
is denied. 
In the same Motion at issue here, styled as an emergency, Plaintiff sought to protect 
the taking of Dr. Susan Pope's deposition which was then scheduled for the following day, 
August 6, 2009. As Dr. Pope's deposition was scheduled to take place the day after the 
filing of the Motion, Judge Marra handled that portion of the Motion on an emergency 
basis. Plaintiffs asserted basis for protecting the deposition of Dr. Pope, is the same basis 
Plaintiff raises here to protect the deposition of Dr. Thys, namely, Plaintiffs Conditional 
4 
EFTA02746083

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 260 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 5 of 6 
Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages Provided by 18 U.S.C. §2255 
(D.E. #113 in Case No. 08-80811), and the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Neither of 
these arguments withstand scrutiny. 
In his August 5, 2009 Order, Judge Marra rejected Plaintiffs contention that her 
notice of conditional intent could be used as a shield to prevent the deposition of Dr. Pope 
from going forward, cogently noting that "[a]bsent an amended pleading or stipulation of 
the parties, Plaintiff's unilateral non-binding notice of intent cannot be used to preclude 
discovery in this case." (D.E. #246, p.4). In the Order Judge Marra also rejected Plaintiffs 
contention that Dr. Pope's deposition should be protected on the basis of the 
psychotherapist-patient privilege, noting that blanket assertions of the privilege of the sort 
Plaintiff raised there, constitute improper utilizations of the privilege. Instead, Plaintiff was 
instructed to assert any psychotherapist-patient privilege she may have during the 
deposition "on a question-by-question basis." Id. at 5. The above reasoning equally applies 
to the deposition of Dr. Thys. Like Plaintiff was instructed to do during the Dr. Pope 
deposition, Plaintiff may assert any psychotherapist-patient privilege she fairly and 
reasonably believes she has during the deposition of Dr. Thys, on a question-by-question 
basis. Accordingly, Plaintiff CMA's Emergency Motion for Protective Order as it relates to 
the Deposition of Dr. Thys is denied; and, 
(4) Plaintiff's Request for Emergency Hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Protective 
Order (D.E. #250) is DENIED. The Court sees no benefit to entertaining oral argument on 
the issue and elects to proceed exclusively upon the pleadings once the motion has been 
fully briefed. 
5 
EFTA02746084

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 260 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 6 of 6 
DONE AND ORDERED this August 11, 2009, in , at West Palm Beach, 
Florida. 
c26 o 
LINN EA R. JOHNS N 
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra 
All Counsel of Record 
6 
EFTA02746085