078.pdf

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 1 of 4 2 Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 6, CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 2 of 4 3 Defendants. ____________________________________/ DOE II, CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order Against Piecemeal Depositions of Jane Doe No.’s 2, 3, 4, and 7 and Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery (DE 66 in 08-80119; DE 58 in 08-80232; DE 73 in 08-80380; DE 23 in 08-80993). The Court has reviewed the motions, responses, replies, and is otherwise fully advised in the premesis. It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order Against Piecemeal Depositions is GRANTED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). As to each of the ten above-styled cases, Defendant is limited Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 3 of 4 4 to a single deposition of each Plaintiff, during which Defendant may depose the plaintiff as both a party and a witness to all other cases of a similar nature of which the plaintiff deposed is aware. Defendant should not expect to be able to re-depose any plaintiff relative to any new cases that may be filed. Therefore, Defendant should examine each plaintiff about the facts relating to all individuals of whom they are aware, regardless of whether an individual has in fact filed a claim against Defendant. In the event additional cases are filed, upon a showing of good cause, the Court will determine whether Defendant will be permitted to re-depose any of the plaintiffs as witnesses to the allegations made in those newly filed cases. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery is GRANTED. In the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, cases 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, and 08-80993 are hereby CONSOLIDATED for purposes of discovery only. Additionally, the parties in the other six above-styled causes (08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893 09-80469, 09-80591) are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before May 5, 2009 why all of the cases should not be consolidated for discovery purposes. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 28 day of April, 2009 th Copies furnished to:_________________________________ KENNETH A. MARRA all counsel of recordUnited States District Judge Case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2009 Page 4 of 4