Court Records
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 261 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,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA I
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.
EFTA02746086
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 261 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,
EFTA02746087
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 261 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.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff,
Emergency Motion for Protective Order Regarding the Taking of her Deposition (D.E.
3
EFTA02746088
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 261 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 4 of 6
#259). Due to the emergency nature of the motion, and believing there is no argument that
can be raised by opposing counsel to justify denying the relief requested, the undersigned
has elected to rule on the motion before waiting for a response. For the following reasons,
Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order is granted.
By this Motion Plaintiff, (' "), seeks an order
delaying the taking of her deposition until such time as she is released from the hospital,
where she is presently recovering from, among other illnesses, thoracic surgery, and
discharged from any hospital and/or nursing home she may be admitted to for post-surgery
recovery. According to , the subject deposition was unilaterally scheduled by
Defendant's counsel to take place at 10:00 a.m. on August 14, 2009.
meanwhile, is reportedly in the hospital at the present time recovering from serious
illnesses, including thoracic surgery, and is not due to be released from the hospital until
at least August 24, 2009. Counsel for has represented that once released, there
is a possibility that will be admitted to a rehabilitative hospital or nursing home
to convalesce from her illnesses and resulting surgery. Obviously, appearing for her
deposition unilaterally scheduled by Defendant to take place August 14, 2009 is, for
a near impossibility.
For "good cause" shown the Court may issue a protective order preventing or
delaying a deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see McCarthy v. Bamett Bank of Poly County,
876 F.2d 89, 91 (11th Cir. 1989). For the reasons listed above, the Court finds good
cause shown to postpone the subject deposition until such time as is discharged
from the hospital and/or any nursing home/rehabilitation hospital she may be admitted to.
In this regard, the Court holds Plaintiff's attorney to the assertion made in the Motion that
4
EFTA02746089
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 261 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 5 of 6
he will keep counsel for Defendant informed as to Plaintiff's expected discharge date in
order to facilitate the rescheduling of her deposition.
On the subject of deposition scheduling, the Court frowns on the unilateral
scheduling of depositions and asks that, before any depositions are unilaterally set,
attempts first be made to reach agreement with opposing counsel on deposition
dates and times. Based on the Motion filed, it appears the dispute herein could have
been amicably resolved between the parties by a simple phone call and without the
need for court intervention. This said, the Court recognizes that a ruling has been
made on the subject Motion without the benefit of a response by Defendant and
allows that there may be, and often is, another side of the story. Suffice it to say that
in this case, with its multitude of Plaintiffs and numerous claims, it is as important as
ever that all counsel conduct themselves in a responsible and professional manner,
mindful of the ethical obligations imposed upon all members of the Bar and attempt,
wherever possible, to cooperate on matters of procedure and scheduling.
In summary, all counsel are hereby put on notice that the Court can ill afford
to waste its resources supervising the discovery process, a process that is intended
to operate without judicial intervention. Hunter's Ridge Golf Co. v. Georgia-Pacific
Corp., 233 F.R.D. 678, 680 (M.D. Fla. 2006)("Discovery is intended to operate with
minimal judicial supervision unless a dispute arises and one of the parties files a
motion requiring judicial intervention"); Nevin v. CSX Transp., 2003 WL 22005030,
*2 (M.D. Fla. 2003) ("discovery is intended to operate with minimal judicial
supervision... ."): U.S. v. Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 695, 696 (S.D.
5
EFTA02746090
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 261 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 6 of 6
Fla. 1990)(reminding the parties that "discovery should be conducted
extrajudicially"); Knight v. Docu-Fax, Inc., 838 F.Supp. 1579, 1581 (N.D. Ga.
1993)(the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] contemplate that discovery be
conducted with a minimum of judicial intervention"). The Court will, of course, issue
appropriate rulings with regard to discovery disputes that cannot, after ardent good
faith efforts, be resolved by the parties themselves. With the same ease, the Court
will not hesitate to award costs or other sanctions against either party or their
attorney if these disputes are being used to gain a tactical advantage or for other
improper purpose. In accordance with the above and foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for Protective
Order Regarding the Taking of her Deposition (D.E. #259) is GRANTED in accordance with
the terms hereof.
DONE AND ORDERED this August 11, 2009, in
Florida.
, at West Palm Beach,
LINNEA R. JOH SON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra
All Counsel of Record
6
EFTA02746091