diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748617/EFTA02748617.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748617/EFTA02748617.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..faf5ca20e7d905a822f2b8e277fc8ff127fa6a25
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748617/EFTA02748617.md
@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO JANE DOE #3'S RESPONSE TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), submits this Reply to Plaintiff's, Jane Doe #3, Response to Epstein's Motion for Sanctions and states:
+
+- 1. On January 13, 2010, Epstein filed a Motion for Sanctions (DE #450) against Jane Doe #3 for unilaterally terminating her Rule 35 IME on November 24, 2009.
+- 2. On February 1, 2010, Jane Doe #3 filed her Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Motion for Sanctions ("Response") (DE #456).
+- 3. Jane Doe #3's Response is based, in part, on the demonstrably false assertion that her counsel did not know Epstein kept an office in the building where the IME took place.
+- 4. As set forth in Epstein's Motion and in Jane Doe #3's Response (Exhibit A), Epstein's maintained an office on the le floor of the building located at 250 Australian Avenue, in West Palm Beach, Florida. Indeed, the Court's October 23, 2009 Order (DE #369) clearly
+
+Jane Doe #2 V. ElAtelQ
+
+Case No. 08-CIV-80119
+
+Epstein's Reply to Jane Doe #3's Response to Epstein's Motion for Sanctions
+
+Page 2 of 6
+
+provides that Epstein will view the depositions from his office, "in a separate room on the 14th floor...."
+
+5. Jane Doe #3's assertions that the Florida Science Foundation is not listed on the building's directory or that the company was administratively dissolved in September, 2009 for failure to file an annual report do not controvert the fact that Jane Doe #3's counsel knew Epstein maintained an office at 250 Australian Avenue.
+
+6. On November 10, 2009, two weeks before Jane Doe #3's IME, Adam Horowitz attended the deposition of at 250 Australian Avenue in which Epstein viewed the deposition from his office on the 14i ' floor. Thus, any argument that counsel did not know Epstein still maintained an office at 250 Australian Avenue, either because the Florida Science Foundation's name was not on the building directory or because the company was administratively dissolved in September 2009 should fall on deaf ears. It is clear that Mr. Horowitz knew, two weeks before Jane Doe #3's IME, that Epstein's office was located at 250 Australian Avenue.'
+
+7. Just as the Florida Science Foundation is not listed on the building's directory, neither is Jessica Arbour, counsel who attended the subject IME, listed as an attorney on the Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. (M&H) website. Attached as Exhibit A is the "Attorneys" section of the M&H website, which noticeably fails to list Ms. Arbour. In addition, Ms. Arbour's page on Martindale.com (attached as Exhibit B) does not indicate any affiliation with
+
+In addition, counsel for Jane Doe #3 attended the following depositions at 250 Australian Ave., which Epstein viewed from a video feed to his: LM on September 24, 2009, Jane Doe on September 30, 2009, Jane Doe #4 on October 27, 2009, as well as others. There is no question Jane Doe #3's counsel knew Epstein maintained an office in the building.
+
+lane Doe #2 v. Epstein
+
+Case No. 08-CI V.80119
+
+Epstein's Reply to lane Doe #3's Response to Epstein's Motion for Sanctions
+
+Page 3 of 6
+
+M&H. It merely provides a Miami address (different from M&H's office address) and states that she attended DePaul law school and was admitted to practice in 2009.
+
+8. Although it is uncertain exactly when Ms. Arbour joined M&H, the Florida Bar News announced that she joined the firm in its October 15, 2009 edition of "On the Move" (attached as Exhibit C), which was just over one month before the subject IME. Thus, it is likely that Ms. Arbour joined M&H sometime in late 2009.
+
+9. If Ms. Arbour did not know Epstein maintained an office at the building, it is only because M&H failed to advise her of this fact.
+
+10. That III MI not have known that Epstein maintained an office at 250 Australian Avenue is inapposite since knowledge by any member of a law firm is imputed to all attorneys in the firm. See e.g. In re Mortgage & Realty Trust, 195 B.R. 740, 754-55 (Bankr., C.D. Cal. 1996) (noting that the imputed knowledge theory holds that knowledge by any member of a law firm is knowledge by all of the attorneys in the firm, partners as well as associates); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Kerr Corp., 50 F.2d 1311, 1318 (7th Cir. 1978) (holding that rule regarding imputation of knowledge applies equally to large firms as well as smaller firms).
+
+11. Thus, since Adam Horowitz knew that Epstein maintained an office in the building two weeks before the subject IME, this knowledge is imputed to Ms. Arbour and she is deemed to have knowledge of this fact.
+
+12. Moreover, the purpose behind the Court's October 23, 2009 Order (DE #369) was to provide a procedure to avoid Epstein crossing paths with the respective Plaintiffs at their
+
+)ane Doe 42 v. Epstein
+
+Case No. 08-CIV-80119
+
+Epstein's Reply to Jane Doe 43's Response to Epstein's Motion for Sanctions
+
+Page 4 of 6
+
+depositions since Epstein maintained an office at the building where the depositions were to take place.
+
+13. M&H's failure to inform their associate, Ms. Arbour, that Epstein maintained an office in the building was likely the cause of the instant dispute. Had Ms. Arbour been told of this important fact, she likely would have made some arrangement or taken some precaution to avoid her client seeing Epstein. For example, Ms. Arbour could have called the undersigned the day before the IME and stated "I am attending the IME of my client tomorrow, is Epstein going to be at his office? If so, we should consult with each other about when our respective clients will be coming and going from the building to avoid a run-in." Or, once Ms. Arbour realized that her client would be going outside to take smoke breaks, she could have called the undersigned and said "my client is going to be outside taking smoke breaks from time to time throughout the day. Should we designate an area for the smoke breaks that Epstein will not walk by? Should we call you when we're going outside?" Ms. Arbour could have also followed the procedure outlined in DE #369 (assuming she knew of such procedure). There are a myriad of different things Ms. Arbour could have done, and may very well have done, had she been informed by M&H that Epstein maintained an office in the building.
+
+14. Because this alleged encounter, which Epstein denies because he did not see Jane Doe #3 or her counsel Epstein's Affidavit, Exhibit A to DEN 450), was wholly the fault of Jane Doe #3's counsel, the Court should grant Epstein's Motion for Sanctions.
+
+15. Jane Doe #3's unilateral cancellation of the IME was not justified and resulted in a substantial waste of physician time, attorney time, court reporter and videographer time. The costs associated with the court reporter and videographer currently totals \$1,260.00 for Visual Awe Doe #2 v. Eostein
+
+Case No. 08-CIV-S0119
+
+Epstein's Reply to Jane Doe #3's Response to Epstein's Motion for Sanctions
+
+Page 5 of 6
+
+Evidence and \$2,207.65 for Prose Court Reporting for a total amount of \$3,467.65. See Exhibit B to DE #450.
+
+16. Now, Dr. will be required to travel back to West Palm Beach to complete Jane Doe #3's IME. Moreover, additional court reporter and videographer expenses will be incurred to complete the IME.
+
+17. Because of her unjustified cancellation of the IME, Jane Doe #3 should bear the foregoing costs.
+
+WHEREFORE, Defendant moves for an order granting sanctions against Jane Doe #3, to include attorneys fees and costs as set forth above and costs associated with the attendance of the court reporter, the transcript and the presence of the videographer and direction that Jane Doe #3 appear for !ME within fifteen (15) days from the date of the Court's order at the undersigned's office, and for such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper.
+
+/s/ Michael J. Pike
+
+Robert D. Critton Jr.
+
+Florida Bar #224162
+
+Michael J. Pike
+
+Florida Bar #617296
+
+Attorneys for Defendant Epstein
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 1 day of February, 2010:
+
+Jane Doe #2 v. Epstein
+
+Case No. 08-CIV-80119
+
+Epstein's Reply to Jane Doe #3's Response to Epstein's Motion for Sanctions
+
+Page 6 of 6
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+
+Suite 2218
+
+Miami, FL 33160
+
+305-931-2200
+
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+
+[ssm@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ssm@sexabuseattorney.com)
+
+[ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #3*
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger
+
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+
+250 Australian Avenue South
+
+Suite 1400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+
+561-659-8300
+
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+
+[jagesq@bellsouth.net](mailto:jagesq@bellsouth.net)
+
+*Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein*
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike
+
+ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar No. 224162
+
+[rcrit@bclclaw.com](mailto:rcrit@bclclaw.com)
+
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar #617296
+
+[mpike@bclclaw.com](mailto:mpike@bclclaw.com)
+
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
+
+515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561/842-2820 Phone
+
+561/515-3148 Fax
+
+*(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748617/EFTA02748617.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748617/EFTA02748617.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..42b16cfff5d04deadd4690da5a13fd9db36afaca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748617/EFTA02748617.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,310 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748617.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 6,
+ "chars": 9726,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 7.57,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 74.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 417.36566162109375,
+ 74.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 417.36566162109375,
+ 104.9730224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 104.9730224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO JANE DOE #3'S \nRESPONSE TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 156.06,
+ 363.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 469.0234375,
+ 363.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 469.0234375,
+ 394.85302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 156.06,
+ 394.85302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.36799999999997,
+ 579.15
+ ],
+ [
+ 367.1779479980469,
+ 579.15
+ ],
+ [
+ 367.1779479980469,
+ 596.2330169677734
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.36799999999997,
+ 596.2330169677734
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 62
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 58
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 76
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748617"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748623/EFTA02748623.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748623/EFTA02748623.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d8122815857384763046a7d10722955acb8cd0a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748623/EFTA02748623.md
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-801 I 9-MARRA ✓
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+/
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+/
+
+## ORDER
+
+THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's "Motion for an Extension Directed to the Court Pursuant to Rule 4, Review and Appeal - Southern District, In Connection with this Court's Order Dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462)." See DE 464. In his Motion, Defendant seeks additional time to file an appeal of Magistrate Judge February 4, 2010 Order compelling production of certain documents within 14 days from the date of that Order. Upon consideration of the motion, response (DE 465), and reply (DE 466), it is hereby
+
+ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion for an Extension (DE 462) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
+
+(I) The deadline for Defendant to file an appeal of Magistrate Judge February 4, 2010 Order is extended to Friday, February 26, 2010.
+
+(2) In the event that Magistrate Judge February 4, 2010 Order is affirmed on
+
+appeal, Defendant will have three (3) business days from the date of this Court's order to produce the documents at issue.
+
+DONE AND ORDERED in at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
+
+Florida, this 11ih day of February, 2010.
+
+KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge
+
+Copies to: all counsel of record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748623/EFTA02748623.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748623/EFTA02748623.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..59a4b83d32b0b519d9d9a60be71bf8c2a98a7da5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748623/EFTA02748623.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748623.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1489,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.79,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.5581359863281,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.5581359863281,
+ 100.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 100.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 280.908,
+ 383.93999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.7633361816406,
+ 383.93999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.7633361816406,
+ 398.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 280.908,
+ 398.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748623"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748625/EFTA02748625.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748625/EFTA02748625.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..794931d294f4f35cc05c5dd38425c6a21dfb5df8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748625/EFTA02748625.md
@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+AO BSA (Rev. 01/09) subpoena to Tally at • Deposition or to Pinta Deoatents in a CiA Action
+
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+
+for the
+
+Southern District of Florida
+
+Jane Doe No. 2 Plaine V. Jeffrey Epstein Defeeloar Civil Action No. 08-CV-80119-MARRNJOHNSO (If the action is pending in another district, state when:
+
+To: Alfredo Rodriguez 11349 SW 86 Lane, Miami, FL
+
+#### SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION OR TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN A
+
+S;24101
+
+Ito Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, te, and set fo belo to testify at a deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization that is not aparty in this case, you must designs one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment:
+
+| Place: Kress Court Reporting 1031 Ives Dairy Road, Suite 228, Bldg. 4 North Miami, FL 33179 | Date and Time: 07/29/2009 11:00 am |
+|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
+|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
+
+The deposition will be recorded by this method: Court Reoorter and Videographer
+
+Ql Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material:
+
+Any and all journals, notes, diaries, writings or other documents referring or relating to Jeffrey Epstein or events or Incidents occurring at his residence located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, including without limitation, the journal you described to Palm Beach Police that contains names of girls who visited the residence.
+
+The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to asubpoena, and Rule 45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are attached.
+
+Date: 07/24/2009 CLERK OF COURT
+
+&pones of Clerk or Deputy Oen
+
+OR
+
+The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name loony) Jane Doe No. 2 , who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
+
+Mermeistein & Horowitz, P.A. - Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+
+18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218, Miaml, FL 33160
+
+Tel: 305-931-2200 - email: ahorowitz@sexabuseattomey.com
+
+
+
+AO RSA (Rev. 01/09) Subpooto to Testify at aDeposition or to Produce Documents in a Civil Action (Page 2)
+
+Civil Action No. 08-CV430119-MARMOHNSO
+
+#### PROOF OF SERVICE
+
+(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fee R Q'. P. 45.)
+
+This subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any) was received by me on (dare)
+
+O I personally served the subpoena on the individual at (place) on (date) ; or O Heft the subpoena at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name) , a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, On (date) , and mailed acopy to the individual's last known address; or Cl I served the subpoena on (name of Individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organisation) O 1 returned the subpoena unexecuted because Other 4,49: , who is on (date) ; or ; or
+
+Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
+
+My fees are S for travel and S for services, for a total of S 0.00
+
+Date: Server's signature Printed name and title Server's address
+
+I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
+
+Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
+
+# MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ PA
+
+ATTORNEYS AT LAW
+
+July 24, 2009
+
+### Via Process Server
+
+Alfredo Rodriguez 11349 SW 86th Lane Miami, FL 33173
+
+Re: Jane Does v. Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
+
+Stuart S. MermNsteln Tel 305.931.2200 Fax 305.931.0877 sem esevabuseattomey.com
+
+18205 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 2218 Mami, Florida 33160 www.sexabuseattorney.com
+
+As you are aware, your deposition has been rescheduled to July 29, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. due to your car problems on the previously scheduled date of July 23, 2009. We will provide car service to transport you to and from the deposition. The car will pick you up at 9:45 a.m. on Wednesday, July 29, 2009. Please review the witness and document subpoena you are being provided by the process server.
+
+Thank you for your attention to this matter.
+
+Very truly yours,
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein
+
+SSM/Ir
+
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIAMI-DADE District of Florida
+
+Case Number: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSO
+
+Plaintiff:
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2
+
+vs.
+
+Defendant:
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+
+For.
+
+Adam D Horowitz
+
+MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ P.A.
+
+18205 Biscayne Bolevard
+
+Suite 2218
+
+Miami, FL 33160
+
+Received by MIAMI-DADE PROCESS, INC. on the 24th day of July, 2009 at 4:00 pm to be served on ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, 11349 SW 86 LANE, MIAMI, FL.
+
+I, RAFAEL (BUDA) NMI do hereby affirm that on the 25th day of July, 2009 at 5:24 pm, I:
+
+Individually Served the within named person with a true copy of this SUBPEONA TO TESTIFY AT DEPOSITION OR TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN A CIVIL ACTION with the date and hour endorsed thereon by me, pursuant to State Statutes.
+
+I certify that I am over the age of 18, have no interest in the above action, and am a Process Server, in good standing, in the judicial circuit in which the process was served and have proper authority in the jurisdiction in which this service was made..Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true F.S. 92.525 Verification of documents.
+
+FAEL (BUDA) rtified Process erver
+
+MIAMI-DADE PROCESS, INC. 247 S.W. 8 Street # 293 Miami, FL 33130-3513 (786) 486-2832
+
+Our Job Serial Number 2009001154
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748625/EFTA02748625.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748625/EFTA02748625.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..914cec200341e90b33028d3b6f10a07f751f5f4e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748625/EFTA02748625.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,356 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748625.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 6151,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.95,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_26.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 194.61599999999999,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 431.77960205078125,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 431.77960205078125,
+ 102.87
+ ],
+ [
+ 194.61599999999999,
+ 102.87
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION \nOR TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN A",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 188.496,
+ 220.32000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 428.4,
+ 220.32000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 428.4,
+ 244.61999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 188.496,
+ 244.61999999999998
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PROOF OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 260.1,
+ 105.30000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 358.30804443359375,
+ 105.30000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 358.30804443359375,
+ 117.44999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 260.1,
+ 117.44999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ PA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 97.30799999999999,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 371.6352233886719,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 371.6352233886719,
+ 103.6363525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 97.30799999999999,
+ 103.6363525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Via Process Server",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 93.636,
+ 273.78000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 187.6375732421875,
+ 273.78000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 187.6375732421875,
+ 286.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 93.636,
+ 286.74
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "RETURN OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 235.00799999999998,
+ 31.589999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.7907409667969,
+ 31.589999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.7907409667969,
+ 47.79
+ ],
+ [
+ 235.00799999999998,
+ 47.79
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nMIAMI-DADE District of Florida",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 190.332,
+ 56.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 438.64202880859375,
+ 56.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 438.64202880859375,
+ 90.1407470703125
+ ],
+ [
+ 190.332,
+ 90.1407470703125
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 451
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 282
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 180
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 276
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748625"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748625/_page_0_Picture_26.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748625/_page_0_Picture_26.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b44f052077627ef296afffb6db58e2d7ede9a75
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748625/_page_0_Picture_26.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:d813b0fb147cd2d35ca6c4e50901834395129df6a51d90e23dbc27ad9a8ebcd9
+size 8144
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748629/EFTA02748629.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748629/EFTA02748629.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e17eca8a679b127f08ce7b53bb05660252b65bf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748629/EFTA02748629.md
@@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80994
+Plaintiff,
+Vs.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80993
+Plaintiff,
+Vs.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+
+C.M.A., CASE NO: 08-CV-80811
+Plaintiff,
+Vs.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80893
+Plaintiff,
+Vs.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+
+1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH
+2 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
+3 PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
+4 CASE NO. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB
+
+5 B.B.,
+6 Plaintiff,
+7 Vs.
+8 JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
+9 Defendant.
+
+10
+11
+12 1031 Ives Dairy Road
+13 Suite 228
+14 North Miami, Florida
+15 August 7, 2009
+16 1:15 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
+17 CONTINUED
+18 VIDEOTAPED
+19 DEPOSITION
+20 of
+21 ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ
+22 taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs pursuant
+23 to a Re-Notice of Taking Continued Videotaped
+24 Deposition (Duces Tecum)
+25 - - -
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80469
+Plaintiff,
+Vs.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80591
+Plaintiff,
+Vs.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80656
+Plaintiff,
+Vs.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+
+1 APPEARANCES:
+2
+3 MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A.
+4 BY: ADAM HOROWITZ, ESQ.
+5 18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+6 Miami, Florida 33160
+7 Attorney for Jane Doe 2, 3, 4, 5,
+8 6, and 7.
+9 ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT ADLER
+10 BY: BRAD 1 [REDACTED], ESQ., and
+11 CARA [REDACTED], ESQ.
+12 Las Olas City Centre
+13 Suite 1650
+14 401 East Las Olas Boulevard
+15 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+16 Attorney for Jane Doe and E.W.
+17 And L.M.
+18
+19 PODHURST ORSECK
+20 BY: KATHERINE W. EZELL, ESQ.
+21 25 West Flagler Street
+22 Suite 800
+23 Miami, Florida 33130
+24 Attorney for Jane Doe 101 and 102.
+25
+26 LEOPOLD-KUVIN
+27 BY: ADAM J. LANGINO, ESQ.
+28 2925 PGA Boulevard
+29 Suite 200
+30 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
+31 Attorney for B.B.
+
+[REDACTED] bedroom?
+
+A. Yes, [REDACTED].
+
+Q. And how would you do that? If you want to turn the page over for the upstairs you could do that.
+
+A. Okay.
+
+MR. CRITTON: Are you going to mark this as an exhibit?
+
+MS. EZELL: Uh-huh.
+
+MR. CRITTON: Would that be Exhibit 3?
+
+MR. [REDACTED]: I think so.
+
+(Exhibit No. 3 was marked for Identification.)
+
+THE WITNESS: This is the [REDACTED] bedroom, [REDACTED] bath, and there were one, two -- the rest of the bedrooms were here and the [REDACTED] bedroom was here. This is [REDACTED] bath one and [REDACTED] bath two.
+
+So the staircase came to the second floor like this and it was between the first and second bedroom. And you could go through here and you enter a foyer with double doors here, double doors here, and you enter the [REDACTED] bath.
+
+[REDACTED] EZELL:
+
+Q. All right. How would you get to the [REDACTED] bathroom on that end?
+
+A. You go through these double doors, go around the bed and you gain access to the [REDACTED] bedroom -- [REDACTED] bathroom, sorry.
+
+Q. And then there was another [REDACTED] bathroom on the other side of the room?
+
+A. Yes, [REDACTED].
+
+Q. Where generally did the massages take place?
+
+A. Right here, [REDACTED].
+
+Q. And is that in the [REDACTED] bathroom?
+
+A. [REDACTED] bathroom, yes.
+
+Q. Do you recall what color the tile was in that bathroom?
+
+A. There was carpet.
+
+Q. Was there tile on the walls or marble or --
+
+A. There was a sauna here with marble but outside the sauna everything was carpet, and the walls, they didn't have any tile. [REDACTED] yes, I will say four feet off the floor they will have marble.
+
+Q. And do you remember what color marble it was?
+
+A. [REDACTED].
+
+1 pool at the house?
+
+2 A. Yes, [REDACTED].
+
+3 Q. And were these sometimes the same girls that came to give massages?
+
+4 A. Yes, [REDACTED].
+
+5 Q. Were there girls in addition to those who came to give massages who hung around the pool?
+
+6 A. The girls who were staying at the house.
+
+7 Q. Okay. And so they weren't girls who just regularly came to hangout around the pool?
+
+8 A. No, [REDACTED].
+
+9 [REDACTED] EZELL: Excuse me. Can we go off the record for a minute?
+
+10 (Thereupon, a recess was had.)
+
+11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record with tape number two.
+
+12 BY MS. EZELL:
+
+13 Q. Mr. Rodriguez, did you receive a subpoena that asked you to bring documents with you to the deposition?
+
+14 A. Yes, [REDACTED].
+
+15 Q. And did you bring any with you?
+
+16 A. I couldn't find anything at my house.
+
+17 Q. Okay. I believe we talked about a journal that you kept, and you looked for that?
+
+Page 319 A. Yes, Q. And you couldn't find it? A. I give it to Detective Joe. Q. Recall. A. Yes, Q. You mentioned that you called Mr. can-Luc Bernell about a recommendation when you re lookin b. A. Yes, Q. And did you know him from his visits in e home? A. Yes, Q. Did you say that his wife's name was Eva? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: No, al EZELL: Q. Do you know what his wife's name was? A. Eva was amodel, a former model from years past who was friend of Mr. Epstein. Do you know if she was married to Glenn Do you know Mr. la MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: I believe, yeah, I'm not ure, EZELL:
+
+1 Page 321 1 BY MS. EZELL: 2 Q. Did they ever visit Mr. Epstein at the 3 home when ere there? 4 A. Yes, 5 Q. How old was the little girl at that time? 6 A. Eight years old. 7 Q. Did the girl's father come to visit as 8 well? 10 Q. And \*remember his name? 9 A. Yes, 11 A. No, 12 Q. Do you remember hearing anything about 13 what he does for aliving? 14 A. No, 15 Q. Can,describe him? 16 A. Tall, American born, I will say 50 years 17 old. 18 Q. What color hair did he have? 19 A. At that time it was black with a few 20 -hairs. 21 Q. Were there drawings of nude women in the 22 house? 23 A. No, 24 Q. Well paintings of nude women in the 25 house?
+
+Page 320 Q. Is she now adoctor? A. No, she was amodel, her husband could be a doctor but I don't think she is. Q. Okay. So is Jean-Luc Bernell married; to your knowledge? A. I don't know, lilt Q. I think I must have gotten confused because we were talking about the picture in the house of the little girl who is lifting up her skirt or her underpants, I'd forgotten what it was. A. Yes, MR. ON: Form. BY MS. EZELL: Q. And I thought you said that that was Jean-Luc's child. Q. Eva.? A. No, she is Mrs. Eva. Q. And !II leffrey Epstein's Goddaughter? A. Yes, A. Yes, Q. Do you now where she and her mother live? A. They live in Manhattan. MR. CRITTON: Form.
+
+1 A. Yes, Q. Did any ihose appear to be 3 Ms. Maxwell? 4 A. Yes, Q. You mentioned that Louella who was still 6 working there when you left -- A. Yes, lin Q. -- was a very religious woman -- 9 A. Yes, Q. -- all sometimes be upset about 11 seeing pictures of nude girls or having to pick up 12 sex toys, et cetera. MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: Yes, BY MS. EZELL: Q. And you said that you remembered her 17 crying because there was apicture of the Pope 18 next to apicture of a naked girl. MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: BY MS. EZELL: Q. Do you know who that naked girl was? 23 A. I don't remember, Q. I believe David Copplld's name came 25 up in the last deposition as someone who would Page 322
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748629/EFTA02748629.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748629/EFTA02748629.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ebc2db5735b5902c5703022e26281620fdbb5ef3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748629/EFTA02748629.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748629.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 7116,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 13.92,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 748
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 111
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 88
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 660
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 80
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748629"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748632/EFTA02748632.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748632/EFTA02748632.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..21b2c1a9b3f653ee8273f9f3e8cefdfb29dee34d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748632/EFTA02748632.md
@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
+**United States District Court**
+
+**SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA**
+
+FILED by \_\_\_\_\_ D.C.
+**DEC - 1 2009**
+STEVEN M. LARIMORE
+CLERK U.S. DIST. CT.
+S. D. OF FLA. - W.P.B.
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+
+**CRIMINAL COMPLAINT**
+
+vs.
+
+ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ,
+
+CASE NUMBER: 09-8308-LRJ
+
+Defendant.
+\_\_\_\_\_/
+
+I, the undersigned complainant, being duly sworn, state the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
+
+From at least as early as January 18, 2007, through on or about November 3, 2009, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant,
+
+**ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ,**
+
+did corruptly conceal a record, document, or other object, with the intent to impair the object's availability for use in an official proceeding and otherwise corruptly obstructed or impeded an official proceeding, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c).
+
+I further state that I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and that this Complaint is based on the following facts:
+
+Please see attached Affidavit
+
+Continued on the attached and made a part hereof.
+
+*Christina J. Pryor*
+Christina J. Pryor, Special Agent
+Federal Bureau of Investigation
+
+Sworn to before me, and subscribed in my presence, upon my finding of probable cause.
+
+December / , 2009 at West Palm Beach, Florida
+Date City and State
+
+LINNEA R. [REDACTED]
+UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
+
+*Linnea R. [Signature]*
+Signature of Judicial Officer
+
+**EXHIBIT**
+C
+
+## AFFIDAVIT
+
+I, Christina J. Pryor, being duly sworn, do state and attest as follows:
+
+1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and have been so employed for three (3) months. I am currently assigned to the Safe Streets Task Force, Miami Field Division, FBI Squad PB-2. Prior to joining the Miami Field Division, I attended the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, for five (5) months where I received training in federal criminal laws and investigation techniques, including the laws related to obstruction of justice.
+
+2. This affidavit is based upon my own personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the investigation, and information provided to me by other law enforcement officers. This affidavit does not purport to contain all the information known to me about this case but addresses only that information necessary to support a finding of probable cause for the issuance of acriminal complaint charging Alfredo Rodriguez with obstruction of official proceedings, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c).
+
+3. On October 27, 2009, agents of the FBL met with and interviewed a cooperating witness ("CW"). The CW reported that, while conducting discovery in a pending civil case before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, he came into contact with Alfredo Rodriguez ("Rodriguez"), who was asubpoenaed witness in the civil case.
+
+4. Rodriguez had been interviewed by FBI agents on January 18, 2007, in connection with a federal criminal investigation into the sexual exploitation of minors. Prior
+
+to being interviewed by FBI, Rodriguez had also been contacted and interviewed by local police detectives, and had been asked to produce documents related to the criminal investigation. The civil litigation involving the CW related to civil damages claims made by victims of the criminal activity that formed the basis of the state and federal criminal investigations.
+
+5. The CW explained to agents that Rodriguez had been deposed under oath on two occasions. The first deposition occurred on July 27, 2009, and the second deposition was conducted on August 9, 2009. In connection with those depositions, Rodriguez was served with a subpoena duces tecum that called for the production of several types of documentary evidence. The CW was present for both depositions and Rodriguez testified that he had no documents responsive to the subpoena duces tecum.
+
+6. In August 2009, after the conclusion of the second deposition, the CW received a phone call from Rodriguez. Rodriguez informed the CW that he had additional information that he had not previously disclosed to any law enforcement agency or any of the civil attorneys. Rodriguez described the information as, the Holy Grail or Golden Nugget and explained that he had compiled lists of additional victims in the case and their contact information. Rodriguez explained that the information contained hundreds of additional victims and their phone numbers from diverse geographic locations, including New York, New Mexico, and Paris, France.
+
+7. Rodriguez asked the CW to pay him \$50,000.00 and, in return, Rodriguez would turn over the documents relating to the victims. In his initial and subsequent
+
+communications with Rodriguez, the CW explained to Rodriguez that he was under subpoena to turn over such information and that it would be illegal for Rodriguez to demand money for turning over the information. Rodriguez persisted that he would only turn over the information in his possession in exchange for \$50,000.00.
+
+8. On October 28, 2009, in aconsensually-monitored phone call, the CW telephoned Rodriguez. Rodriguez again indicated that he would not turn over the information relating to the additional victims without monetary compensation. Rodriguez was told that an associate of the CW would be in touch with him regarding the information and exchange. The associate that the CW referred to was, in fact, an undercover employee (UCE) of the FBI.
+
+9. On October 29, 2009, the FBI UCE contacted Rodriguez via telephone. Rodriguez again explained that he would only turn over the information in exchange for monetary compensation. The UCE advised Rodriguez that it would take several days to acquire the funds and that once the funds were obtained, he/she would contact Rodriguez. During the conversation, Rodriguez admitted that he knew that the information was relevant to the FBI's criminal investigation and was called for by the investigation. Rodriguez explained that he had not turned over the information to the FBI because: (1) it was his "property" and he should be compensated for it; and (2) he was afraid that the target of the investigation would make him "disappear" or otherwise harm him, and the information was his "insurance policy."
+
+10. On November 2, 2009, the UCE made contact with Rodriguez via telephone.
+
+In that conversation, Rodriguez and the UCE continued the discussion regarding the purchase of the documents and scheduled ameeting for the following day.
+
+11. On November 3, 2009, Rodriguez met with the UCE at apredetermined location. During the meeting, Rodriguez produced a small bound book and several sheets of legal pad paper containing hand written notes. Rodriguez explained that he had taken the bound book from his former employer's residence while employed there in 2004 to 2005 and that the book had been created by persons working for his former employer. Rodriguez discussed in detail the information contained within the book, and identified important information to the UCE. In addition, Rodriguez admitted he had previously lied to FBI. Rodriguez asked the UCE about the \$50,000.00, took possession of the money, and began counting it.
+
+12. Rodriguez was then detained for Obstruction of Official Proceedings, Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1512(c), and questioned. After Miranda warnings were administered by agents, Rodriguez waived his rights and signed a written waiver of those rights. Rodriguez admitted that he had the documents and book in his possession and had never turned them over to local law enforcement or the FBI. In addition, Rodriguez advised he had witnessed nude girls whom he believed were underage at the pool area of his former employer's home, knew that his former employer was engaging in sexual contact with underage girls, and had viewed pornographic images of underage girls on computers in his employer's home. Rodriguez was then released from custody for further investigation.
+
+13. The items that Rodriguez had attempted to sell to the UC for \$50,000.00
+
+were reviewed by an agent familiar with the underlying criminal investigation. As Rodriguez had described, the items contained information material to the underlying investigation that would have been extremely useful in investigating and prosecuting the case, including the names and contact information of material witnesses and additional victims. Had those items been produced in response to the inquiries of the state law enforcement officers or the FBI Special Agents, their contents would have been presented to the federal grand jury.
+
+Based upon the foregoing, your affiant believes that probable cause exists to believe that, from at least as early as January 18, 2007 through on or about November 3, 2009, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, Alfredo Rodriguez did corruptly conceal arecord, document, or other object, with the intent to impair the object's availability for use in an official proceeding and otherwise corruptly obstructed or impeded an official proceeding, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c).
+
+FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
+
+A . PRY° C ENT FEDERAL BUREAU OF S ATION
+
+Sworn to and subscribed before me this / day of December, 2009.
+
+R. JOHNSO UNITED STA GISTRATE JUDGE
+
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+Case No. 09-8308-LRJ
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+
+vs.
+
+ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ,
+
+Defendant.
+
+## RIMINAL COVER SHEET
+
+- 1. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the United States Attorney's Office prior to October 14, 2003? Yes X No
+- 2. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the Central Region of the United States Attorney's Office prior to September 1, 2007? Yes X No
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+JEFFREY H. SLOMAN ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+
+By:
+
+A. VILLAFA Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor Ft Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: 954-660-5946 Facsimile: 954-356-7230
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748632/EFTA02748632.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748632/EFTA02748632.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d1458b435af706153345b11387f9abade6e30288
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748632/EFTA02748632.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,406 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748632.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 7,
+ "chars": 10169,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 8.57,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "United States District Court",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 188.496,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 430.84799999999996,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 430.84799999999996,
+ 104.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 188.496,
+ 104.49
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CRIMINAL COMPLAINT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 321.91200000000003,
+ 147.42000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 504.9,
+ 147.42000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 504.9,
+ 162.81
+ ],
+ [
+ 321.91200000000003,
+ 162.81
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "AFFIDAVIT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 273.189453125,
+ 92.34
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.556,
+ 92.34
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.556,
+ 106.11000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 273.189453125,
+ 106.11000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 106.92
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.75600000000003,
+ 106.92
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.75600000000003,
+ 134.843505859375
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 134.843505859375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "RIMINAL COVER SHEET",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 231.948,
+ 321.57000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 378.828,
+ 321.57000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 378.828,
+ 335.8435363769531
+ ],
+ [
+ 231.948,
+ 335.8435363769531
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 285
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 43
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 311
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 316
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 326
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 333
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 249
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748632"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748639/EFTA02748639.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748639/EFTA02748639.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e861a5aa6cef8d426507477f5113dc85c4290b8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748639/EFTA02748639.md
@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRia
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+/
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
+
+/
+
+### PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 2's MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA AND FOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT AGAINST ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
+
+Plaintiffs, Jane Doe No. 2, et al., by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file this Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena and for Order of Contempt Against Alfredo Rodriguez, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(e), and state as follows:
+
+I. On July 25, 2009, Alfredo Rodriguez, a nonparty, was personally served a subpoena duces tecum to appear for deposition on July 29, 2009 ("the subpoena"). I The
+
+I Rodriguez was originally scheduled to appear for deposition on July 23, 2009, but failed to appear, claiming that he had "car troubles." Plaintiffs' counsel arranged for car service for him to appear at the July 29, 2009 deposition.
+
+subpoena and proof of service are attached as Exhibit "A." He was commanded to provide testimony and produce the following:
+
+> Any and all journals, notes, diaries, writings or other documents referring to or relating to Jeffrey Epstein or events or incidents occurring at his residence located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, including without limitation, the journal you described to Palm Beach Police that contains the names of girls who visited the residence.
+
+2. Rodriguez did not object to the subpoena, nor did he claim the requested documents were privileged. He appeared for deposition on July 29, 2009, and August 7, 2009, but he failed to bring any of the requested documents. During his testimony on August 7, 2009, he swore that he had no responsive documents in his possession, and that he had turned over all such documents to the Palm Beach Police, including a journal which listed the names and phone numbers of young girls who came to the residence where he worked to give "massages" to Jeffrey Epstein. See Exhibit "B", deposition transcript of Alfredo Rodriguez, taken August 7, 2009, pp. 318-319.
+
+3. On February 1, 2010, Rodriguez was arraigned in federal court on obstruction of justice charges based on allegations that he intentionally withheld documents from federal and state law enforcement authorities. These withheld documents encompass those requested in Plaintiffs' subpoena, including the journal listing names and phone numbers of young girls. According to the criminal complaint, after making misrepresentations to federal law enforcement authorities and withholding documents, he attempted to sell these documents to a cooperating witness for \$50,000. Rodriguez made this offer after his deposition on August 7, 2009, at which he testified under oath that he did not possess the documents. A copy of the criminal complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "C".
+
+4. It is likely that Rodriguez remains in possession of at least a copy of the journal that is the subject of the subpoena. Nonetheless, even if he did not retain a copy of the documents he handed to the cooperating witness, Rodriguez has the right to possession of those documents. Specifically, they are subject to production to Rodriguez in the discovery phase of his criminal case. The Assistant U.S. Attorney has an affirmative duty to produce all evidence in her possession that is material to the guilt of Alfredo Rodriguez, regardless of whether that information was requested by the Defendant or not. ee United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985). 5!e also Fed.R.Crim P. 16(a)(1XE). Evidence is material that creates a reasonable probability that the outcome of a criminal proceeding would be different if suppressed. Id. at 682. The journal in question is the central piece of evidence in the prosecution's case against Alfredo Rodriguez. Accordingly, Alfredo Rodriguez has, at the very least, a right to possession of the documents that are the subject of the Plaintiff's subpoena.
+
+5. Rule 45(a)(1)(i), Fed.R.Civ.P., permits a party to subpoena documents from a nonparty that are within "that person's possession, custody or control." The term "control" under the federal discovery rules includes not only documents in the nonparty's possession, but also "the legal right to obtain the documents requested on demand." Searock v. Stripling, 736 F.2d 650 (11th Cir. 1984). Rodriguez has this right to obtain the subpoenaed documents under Bagley or in the normal course of discovery in his criminal case. 2 Therefore, it would not be an excuse or response that Rodriguez does not at this moment have possession of the subpoenaed documents.
+
+2 These documents, moreover, are not subject to the Fifth Amendment "act of production" privilege since they are already in the possession of the government and their
+
+6. Plaintiffs' counsel has no other means of obtaining a copy of the documents in Rodriguez's possession except by means of an Order requiring full compliance with the July 25, 2009 subpoena.
+
+7. Plaintiff further seeks an Order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(e) to hold Rodriguez in contempt of court, together with sanctions as this Court deems appropriate.
+
+8. A Commentary to Rule 45(e) notes "the special role that contempt plays in enforcing subpoenas against nonparty witnesses". Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(e) (Commentary C45- 26, Contempt). Where a nonparty fails to comply with a subpoena, "the threat of contempt is the only remedy." Id. The civil contempt power of the Court extends to jail of the nonparty to enforce compliance:
+
+> The contempt most often associated with the disobedience of a subpoena is the category of "civil" contempt, the purpose of which is to enforce compliance in the particular case, with any penalty imposed designed to further the rights of the party in whose behalf the subpoena issued. When it is still within a person's power to comply, for example, and the person willfully refuses to, the person can be jailed until compliance is offered. Even the jailing in that case is an aspect of civil, not criminal, contempt.
+
+Id.
+
+9. Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with federal public defender David Brannon, who stated that Alfredo Rodriguez objects to the relief requested in this Motion in that Alfredo Rodriguez claims to no longer be in possession of responsive documents.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Jane Doe No. 2 et al., respectfully request (1) an Order requiring Alfredo Rodriguez to comply with the lawfully issued subpoena duces tecum and produce copies of all documents in his care, custody or control relating to Jeffrey Epstein,
+
+production would not "implicitly authenticate" them. See Fisher v. United States 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976).
+
+including without limitation, the log of names and phone numbers he recently attempted to sell to a cooperating witness; (2) an order holding Alfredo Rodriguez in contempt of court for failure to comply with the lawfully issued subpoena, and providing that Alfredo Rodriguez shall produce the requested documents to Plaintiffs' counsel by a date certain or be arrested and jailed for civil contempt until such time as the documents are produced; and (3) any and all other relief this Court deems appropriate.
+
+# Certificate Pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(A)(3)
+
+Counsel for the movant has conferred with counsel for the nonparty affected by the relief sought in this Motion in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the Motion and has been unable to do so.
+
+Dated: February 17, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: Is/ Adam D. Horowitz Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) ssm@sexabuseattorney.com Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com Jessica D. Arbour (FL Bar No. 67885) jarbour@sexabuseattomey.com MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877
+
+#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I hereby certify that on February 17, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+/s/ Adam D. Horowitz
+
+## SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. igoldberger@agwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bc1claw.com
+
+Michael James Pike MPike@bcIclaw.com
+
+James brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+Isidro Manuel isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack iph@searcvlaw.com Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawyerwillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
+
+# Via Facsimile and Regular Mail:
+
+Dave Lee Brannon, Esq. Federal Public Defender 450 S Australian Ave Ste 500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5008 Fax: (561) 833-0368
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748639/EFTA02748639.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748639/EFTA02748639.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..696cb150e667cba43e54dfd92d6cbfba37e5fc79
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748639/EFTA02748639.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,429 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748639.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 7,
+ "chars": 9256,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.21,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 2's MOTION TO COMPEL \nCOMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA AND FOR ORDER \nOF CONTEMPT AGAINST ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, \nAND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 153.0,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 459.0682067871094,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 459.0682067871094,
+ 445.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 153.0,
+ 445.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate Pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(A)(3)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 192.78000000000003,
+ 235.70999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 419.7056579589844,
+ 235.70999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 419.7056579589844,
+ 251.68353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 192.78000000000003,
+ 251.68353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 227.052,
+ 71.17889404296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 386.0939636230469,
+ 71.17889404296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 386.0939636230469,
+ 85.18353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 227.052,
+ 85.18353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST \nDOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN \nUnited States District Court, Southern District of Florida",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 156.67200000000003,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 156.67200000000003,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Via Facsimile and Regular Mail:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 320.688,
+ 304.56
+ ],
+ [
+ 494.17266845703125,
+ 304.56
+ ],
+ [
+ 494.17266845703125,
+ 320.30352783203125
+ ],
+ [
+ 320.688,
+ 320.30352783203125
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 64
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748639"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748646/EFTA02748646.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748646/EFTA02748646.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed7d154c26247e3d455d8b39d8a21262646e6098
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748646/EFTA02748646.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 — MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+v.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+/
+
+## ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY
+
+This matter came before the Court upon the Defendant's and Plaintiff's Joint Motion for an Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Having considered the motion and the agreement of counsel, it is
+
+ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion for extension is GRANTED as follows:
+
+A. New deadline to complete discovery: 04/16/2010
+
+DONE AND ORDERED this day of , 2010.
+
+Copies to all Counsel of Record
+
+KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748646/EFTA02748646.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748646/EFTA02748646.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f7e30de4cd70afb5ab2f569cf521245a129d0e06
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748646/EFTA02748646.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748646.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 669,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.75,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 89.91
+ ],
+ [
+ 415.1364440917969,
+ 89.91
+ ],
+ [
+ 415.1364440917969,
+ 119.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 119.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME \nTO COMPLETE DISCOVERY",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 138.924,
+ 326.43
+ ],
+ [
+ 481.2416076660156,
+ 326.43
+ ],
+ [
+ 481.2416076660156,
+ 356.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 138.924,
+ 356.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748646"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748647/EFTA02748647.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748647/EFTA02748647.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4d6cc64eec653422552198a51354881b4e7053f1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748647/EFTA02748647.md
@@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-C1V-80119-MARRA/MI
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+I
+
+## JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, and Plaintiff, JANE DOE, by and through her undersigned attorneys respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time to complete discovery deadlines, and as good cause in support of granting the motion, states as follows:
+
+- 1. This case is currently set on a two week trial docket commencing on July 19, 2010.
+- 2. The Amended Complaint filed by the Plaintiff is still the subject of aMotion to Dismiss filed on June 12, 2009 (DE 87). Thus, an Answer has not yet been filed.
+- 3. The majority of the deposition of Plaintiff has occurred; however, several witness depositions have yet to occur.
+
+Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 2
+
+4. The scheduling of depositions in this matter has become much more difficult since the case was consolidated on May 14, 2009, due to the number of attorneys involved and the fact that witnesses, plaintiffs and the defendant may only be deposed once. (See Order Consolidating Cases for Purpose of Discovery and Procedural Motions That Relate to Multiple Cases).
+
+5. Due the fact that depositions are still being scheduled, both Plaintiff and Defendant are in agreement with extending the discovery cutoff an additional two (2) week from April 2, 2010, making the new discovery cutoff date April 16, 2010.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant request that this Court enter an order granting the Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery
+
+# CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1
+
+Counsel for the movant conferred via e-mail with counsel for the Plaintiff and counsel for the Plaintiff is in agreement with moving the above date.
+
+> By: /s/ Michael J. Pike MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+
+
+### Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that atrue copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 19th day of February, 2010.
+
+Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al.
+Page 3
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike
+
+ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar No. 224162
+
+rcrit@bclclaw.com
+
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar #617296
+
+mpike@bclclaw.com
+
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
+
+303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561/842-2820 Phone
+
+561/515-3148 Fax
+
+*(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)*
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+**Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein**
+**Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/...**
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+
+Suite 2218
+
+Miami, FL 33160
+
+305-931-2200
+
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+
+ssm@sexabuseattorney.com
+
+ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs*
+
+*In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994*
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+
+250 Australian Avenue South
+
+Suite 1400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+
+[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED] Fistos & Lehrman, PL
+
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+
+Suite 2
+
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893*
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+
+*Pro Hac Vice*
+
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+
+801-585-5202
+
+801-585-6833 Fax
+
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+
+Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al.
+
+Page 4
+
+561-659-8300
+
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+
+jazeso@bellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein
+
+Isidro M. MN Esq.
+
+=Law Firm, P.A.
+
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561-832-7732
+
+561-832-7137 F
+
+isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-
+
+80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748647/EFTA02748647.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748647/EFTA02748647.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9159c4cff65f9ca115e81e166315a3cfbef778d3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748647/EFTA02748647.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,294 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748647.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 4217,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 7.33,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_1_Picture_8.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 92.34
+ ],
+ [
+ 414.0306701660156,
+ 92.34
+ ],
+ [
+ 414.0306701660156,
+ 120.30072021484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 120.30072021484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME \nTO COMPLETE DISCOVERY",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 175.64399999999998,
+ 382.32
+ ],
+ [
+ 449.5428161621094,
+ 382.32
+ ],
+ [
+ 449.5428161621094,
+ 409.8631896972656
+ ],
+ [
+ 175.64399999999998,
+ 409.8631896972656
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 163.404,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 494.6355285644531,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 494.6355285644531,
+ 402.57
+ ],
+ [
+ 163.404,
+ 402.57
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 256.428,
+ 582.39
+ ],
+ [
+ 368.9578857421875,
+ 582.39
+ ],
+ [
+ 368.9578857421875,
+ 595.3499999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 256.428,
+ 595.3499999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/...",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 192.168,
+ 360.45000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.12800000000004,
+ 360.45000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.12800000000004,
+ 400.95000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 192.168,
+ 400.95000000000005
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 201
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 280
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 58
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748647"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748647/_page_1_Picture_8.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748647/_page_1_Picture_8.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3385d9b5bb4657b0ea164c663e9572995a858037
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748647/_page_1_Picture_8.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:4f8b533196a3176f33ec5b5c05351d70c884f80fef417134b750e2e0b90faa86
+size 3702
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748651/EFTA02748651.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748651/EFTA02748651.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1a8bd5b4cd5507953737d0589ea7b795f6b1143b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748651/EFTA02748651.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRAJJOHNSON
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION JAS TO JANE DOE v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 08-CIV-808931
+
+This matter came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion to Attend Mediation and Plaintiff's counsel being in agreement with the entry of this Order, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
+
+The Court's No Contact Order (DE 238) shall not preclude Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, from attending Plaintiff, Jane Doe's mediation or trial of this case.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010.
+
+Linnea R. United States Magistrate Judge
+
+Courtesy Copies: Judge Kenneth Marra Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748651/EFTA02748651.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748651/EFTA02748651.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7f3e4fa3954d9e70eb4dd8be306b20959b4f8ca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748651/EFTA02748651.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748651.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 904,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.81,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 77.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.48800000000006,
+ 77.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.48800000000006,
+ 104.938232421875
+ ],
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 104.938232421875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S \nMOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION \nJAS TO JANE DOE v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 08-CIV-808931",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 167.07600000000002,
+ 366.93
+ ],
+ [
+ 456.3282775878906,
+ 366.93
+ ],
+ [
+ 456.3282775878906,
+ 406.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 167.07600000000002,
+ 406.62
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 169
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748651"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748652/EFTA02748652.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748652/EFTA02748652.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4bd5bbd7b25c8bc7d9f6007531ce3fa2bd8907e2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748652/EFTA02748652.md
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+### DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF fAS TO JANE DOE v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 08-CIV-80893)
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, moves this Court for an order allowing him to attend mediation in the above-styled matter and as grounds set forth would state:
+
+- 1. The Court entered a no contact order which may apply to Jane Doe, DE
+- 238.
+- 2. Plaintiffs counsel and Plaintiff, Jane Doe have no objection to Mr. Epstein attending mediation and trial.
+- 3. Therefore, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in an abundance of caution requests that the court enter the attached proposed Agreed Order which shall not preclude him from attending Jane Doe's mediation or the trial of this case.
+
+#### Rule 7.1 Certification
+
+Defense counsel has spoken with Plaintiff's counsel and he has no objectio to the entry of the proposed order.
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike
+
+Robert D. Critton, Jr.
+
+Michael J. Pike
+
+Attorneys for Defendant Epstein
+
+# Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by electronic mail (e-mail) on this 19th day of February, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike
+
+ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar No. 224162
+
+rcrit@bciclaw.com
+
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar #617296
+
+mpike@bc1claw.com
+
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN
+
+303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561/842-2820 Phone
+
+561/515-3148 Fax
+
+(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+# Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey E • Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ssm@sexabuseattomey.com ahorowitz@sexabuseattomev.com Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 jaaeso®bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein
+
+, Jaffe, Weissing,M, Fistos & Lehrman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 brad@pathtojustice.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax cassellpalaw.utah.edu Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe
+
+Isidro M. ME, Esq. Law Finn, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F isidrozarcia bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748652/EFTA02748652.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748652/EFTA02748652.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0d72d11b38889b78e44d8f14d3ec2ae642bc48e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748652/EFTA02748652.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,262 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748652.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 3141,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.25,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 80.19
+ ],
+ [
+ 413.712,
+ 80.19
+ ],
+ [
+ 413.712,
+ 107.73000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 107.73000000000002
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION \nAND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF \nfAS TO JANE DOE v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 08-CIV-80893)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 153.0,
+ 369.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 471.954833984375,
+ 369.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 471.954833984375,
+ 409.86
+ ],
+ [
+ 153.0,
+ 409.86
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Rule 7.1 Certification",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 255.204,
+ 110.16000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 359.856,
+ 110.16000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 359.856,
+ 122.30999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 255.204,
+ 122.30999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 286.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 365.62908935546875,
+ 286.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 365.62908935546875,
+ 300.51
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 300.51
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service \nJane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey E \u2022 \nCase No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 192.168,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.0559999999999,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.0559999999999,
+ 126.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 192.168,
+ 126.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 191
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 175
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 111
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748652"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748655/EFTA02748655.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748655/EFTA02748655.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ac110b93e935197c6b665026488c8d2bfeaacb4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748655/EFTA02748655.md
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION (AS TO JANE DOE v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 08-CIV-80893)
+
+This matter came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion to Attend IDE 471) Mediation and Plaintiff's counsel being in agreement with the entry of this Order, it is
+
+HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
+
+The Court's No Contact Order (DE 238) shall not preclude Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, from attending Plaintiff, Jane Doe's mediation or trial of this case.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this if ctierday of cettny , 2010.
+
+ti.4.40 r -70 A • frnAtf.4 United States Magistrate Judge
+
+Courtesy Copies: Judge Kenneth Marra Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748655/EFTA02748655.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748655/EFTA02748655.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e866451c98d1d8f4913ee34d0e5f505f0e9ffdd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748655/EFTA02748655.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748655.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 946,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.82,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.02499999999998,
+ 91.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 408.6687316894531,
+ 91.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 408.6687316894531,
+ 119.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.02499999999998,
+ 119.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S \nMOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION \n(AS TO JANE DOE v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 08-CIV-80893)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 168.19000244140625,
+ 370.17
+ ],
+ [
+ 446.40948486328125,
+ 370.17
+ ],
+ [
+ 446.40948486328125,
+ 409.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 168.19000244140625,
+ 409.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748655"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748656/EFTA02748656.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748656/EFTA02748656.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a3d2fbf6d30b833c4ebe19f4f307057c7b4b68b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748656/EFTA02748656.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 — MARRA/EMI
+
+JANE DOE,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+v.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+## ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY
+
+This matter came before the Court upon the Defendant's and Plaintiff's Joint Motion for (DE 07th an Extension of Time to Complete Discovery?' Having considered the motion and the agreement of counsel, it is
+
+ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion for extension is GRANTED as follows:
+
+A. New deadline to complete discovery: 04/16/2010
+
+DONE AND ORDERED this / 9 r day of F&bruCk.C14/8 , 2010.
+
+KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
+
+Copies to all Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748656/EFTA02748656.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748656/EFTA02748656.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a93f1af94c4259df6ac60de48f49bcc9a5e3beab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748656/EFTA02748656.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748656.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 710,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.77,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 202.95000000000002,
+ 102.87
+ ],
+ [
+ 406.88140869140625,
+ 102.87
+ ],
+ [
+ 406.88140869140625,
+ 129.6669921875
+ ],
+ [
+ 202.95000000000002,
+ 129.6669921875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME \nTO COMPLETE DISCOVERY",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 143.91000000000003,
+ 329.66999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 472.5694885253906,
+ 329.66999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 472.5694885253906,
+ 357.3799743652344
+ ],
+ [
+ 143.91000000000003,
+ 357.3799743652344
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 151
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748656"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748657/EFTA02748657.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748657/EFTA02748657.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1ce8b10ef1662d70bc4b773689a367b87e60af0a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748657/EFTA02748657.md
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRAa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
+
+## PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-S'S NOTIFICATION OF 90 DAYS EXPIRING ON MOTION TO COMPEL
+
+Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.B.3, hereby give notice that a motion in this case has been pending and fully briefed for a period of ninety (90) days, as follows:
+
+- I. On September 30, 2009, Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8 filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Net Worth Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 333).
+- 2. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed his response to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel on November 2, 2009 (D.E. 390).
+- 3. Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8 filed their reply to Defendant Epstein's response on November 23, 2009 (D.E. 426).
+
+- 4. No hearing has been held or scheduled on the Motion.
+- 5. Plaintiffs calculate that the applicable ninety day period expired on February 22, 2010.
+- 6. Plaintiffs' counsel file this Notification for purposes of compliance with the duty of movant's counsel set forth in S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1 B.3.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) ssm@sexabuseattorney.com Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I hereby certify that on February 23, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+/s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein
+
+## SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. igoldberger@agwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bciclaw.com
+
+James brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+Isidro Manuel isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack jph@searcylaw.com U
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike MPike@bciclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawyerwillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748657/EFTA02748657.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748657/EFTA02748657.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a1ae5899eacede122aa7e211813ce3f4d970bd91
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748657/EFTA02748657.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,247 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748657.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 2695,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.85,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.56707763671875,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.56707763671875,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-S'S NOTIFICATION \nOF 90 DAYS EXPIRING ON MOTION TO COMPEL",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 159.732,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 453.38580322265625,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 453.38580322265625,
+ 417.363037109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 159.732,
+ 417.363037109375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 227.052,
+ 427.68
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 427.68
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 442.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 227.052,
+ 442.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST \nDOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN \nUnited States District Court, Southern District of Florida",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 156.67200000000003,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 156.67200000000003,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 54
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748657"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748660/EFTA02748660.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748660/EFTA02748660.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d23af41060c27a944f2762f173b119629f06154
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748660/EFTA02748660.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+
+**From:** "Brad [REDACTED]" <[brad@pathtojustice.com](mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com)>
+**Date:** February 26, 2010 9:30:19 AM MST
+**To:** "Jack Goldberger" <[jgoldberger@agwpa.com](mailto:jgoldberger@agwpa.com)>
+**Subject:** RE: Nadia depo
+
+I will call you today sometime but I am tied up most of the day. All attorneys cross-noticed the depo for Monday and it has been on for awhile, so we will need to get a date in the very near future that works for everyone's schedule, and as you know that is not easy to do. Like I said, I will call you at my first opportunity today but this is not completely in my control.
+
+Brad [REDACTED]
+Civil Justice Attorney
+[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing,
+[REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+Telephone: 954-524-2820
+Facsimile: 954-524-2822
+[pathtojustice.com](http://pathtojustice.com)
+
+-----Original Message-----
+
+**From:** Jack Goldberger [mailto:jgoldberger@agwpa.com]
+**Sent:** Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:44 PM
+**To:** Brad [REDACTED]
+**Subject:** Nadia depo
+
+Brad
+
+I left u a message and didn't hear back from u. I have hearings on my lake county cap sex battery case set next week in conflict with Nadia depo. Please call me on cell to set another date. [REDACTED]
+Jack
+
+Sent from my iPhone
+
+EXHIBIT A
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748660/EFTA02748660.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748660/EFTA02748660.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..13a89a862477b99b9b14b359d57153ca11485b92
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748660/EFTA02748660.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748660.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 1369,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 6.14,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748660"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748661/EFTA02748661.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748661/EFTA02748661.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89aacc97ca93ce39b6a69e4ba394d374ecd913d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748661/EFTA02748661.md
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/Ja
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO THE DEPOSITION OF
+
+Third-Party Witness, by and through her undersigned attorney, Jack A. Goldberger, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), moves for a Protective Order to rescheduled her deposition currently set for Monday, March 1, 2010 and states:
+
+1. On February 3, 2010, counsel for Plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a Notice of Taking the Deposition of Third-Party Witness, in a related State Court action filed against Mr. Epstein. While the Notice is filed in L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Palm Beach County Circuit Court Case No: 502008CA028051AXXXMB, counsel for Plaintiff, Jane Doe, intends to utilize this deposition in Jane Doe's Federal Court action. Further, counsel for Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8 have filed a Cross-Notice of Taking Depositions as to
+
+2. As the court is well aware, the scheduling of depositions in these cases has been difficult given the fact that there are several plaintiffs represented by several attorneys and this court, by way of its Consolidation Order, dictates that depositions should only be taken one time. To date, the parties have done their best to work together in coordinating the depositions in which it is apparent that all of the plaintiffs' attorneys will want to be present.
+
+3. While March 1, 2010 is a previously agreed upon date provided by the undersigned for the deposition of the undersigned now has a conflict that prevents his attendance on March 1, 2010.
+
+4. Undersigned counsel is representing the Defendant in State of Florida v. Esterson, Case No: 2009CF2114A02, before the Honorable Judge 1■ **in a Capital Sexual Battery case out of Lake County, Florida. If convicted, the Defendant faces a potential life sentence. Counsel for Plaintiff, Jane Doe, and counsel for Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8, are aware of the pending case in Lake County, Florida, and the fact that there may potentially be some scheduling issues with respect to same.**
+
+**5. State of Florida v. Esterson was originally scheduled for trial on March 7, 2010. The case has now been rescheduled for trial on April 5, 2010. However, the undersigned must travel to Lake County, Florida on March 1, 2010 (upon his return to Florida) with an expert witness to meet with the Defendant and prepare for the Pretrial Evidentiary Hearing scheduled for March 3, 2010.**
+
+**6. Undersigned counsel contacted counsel for Plaintiff, Jane Doe, via email and telephone on February 24 and February 25, 2010 detailing the circumstances surrounding the need to reschedule the deposition of providing additional available dates wherein both the undersigned and will be available.**
+
+7. It should also be noted that the undersigned is currently out of town on a planned vacation in Colorado and is making every attempt to resolve the current scheduling conflict.
+
+8. Counsel for Plaintiff, Jane Doe, contacted the undersigned via email on February 26, 2010 indicating that "the deposition has been set for a while and has been cross-noticed by other parties, and therefore is not completely in his control" See Attached Exhibit A.
+
+9. Out of an abundance of caution, the undersigned is filing this protective order as to the deposition of Third-Party Witness . The undersigned, at his earliest availability, will contact all interested parties and coordinate a new date for the deposition of
+
+WHEREFORE, Third-Party Witness, , respectfully requests the Court enter a protective order allowing her deposition to be rescheduled from March 1, 2010, to another date to be agreed upon by all interested parties.
+
+> Is/ Jack A. Goldberger Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Third-Party Witness,
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by electronic mail (email) on this 26th day of February, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Jack A. Goldberger
+JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ.
+Florida Bar No. 262013
+[jgoldberger@agwpa.com](mailto:jgoldberger@agwpa.com)
+ATTERBURY GOLDBERGER & WEISS, PA
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite #1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+**Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein**
+**Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA** [REDACTED]
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+Suite 2218
+Miami, FL 33160
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+[ssm@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ssm@sexabuseattorney.com)
+[ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs*
+*In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994*
+
+Robert D. Critton, Jr.
+Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman, LLP
+303 Banyan Blvd.
+Suite 400
+561-842-2820
+561-844-6929
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+*Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein*
+
+[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman, PL
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+[brad@pathtojustice.com](mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893*
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+*Pro Hac Vice*
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+801-585-5202
+801-585-6833 Fax
+[cassellp@law.utah.edu](mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu)
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+
+Isidro M. [REDACTED], Esq.
+[REDACTED] Law Firm, P.A.
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561-832-7732
+561-832-7137 F
+[isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net](mailto:isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net)
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748661/EFTA02748661.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748661/EFTA02748661.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3fd8a6e92b89cfe449b328d549e0369f9b3e9427
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748661/EFTA02748661.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,291 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748661.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 5,
+ "chars": 5945,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 6.65,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.6464538574219,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.6464538574219,
+ 102.35302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 102.35302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER \nAS TO THE DEPOSITION OF",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 159.732,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 418.93316650390625,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 418.93316650390625,
+ 392.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 159.732,
+ 392.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 541.8900000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 369.42791748046875,
+ 541.8900000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 369.42791748046875,
+ 557.9730072021484
+ ],
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 557.9730072021484
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA [REDACTED]",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 191.55599999999998,
+ 264.87
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.0559999999999,
+ 264.87
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.0559999999999,
+ 306.99
+ ],
+ [
+ 191.55599999999998,
+ 306.99
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748661"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748666/EFTA02748666.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748666/EFTA02748666.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60853e9a5d98e2cf0e7ff9515200071ece822aa4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748666/EFTA02748666.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRai
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION BY TWO PAGES IN DEFENDANT'S, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM
+
+This matter came before the Court on Defendant's, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Motion to Exceed Page Limitation by only two (2) pages in his Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462) with Incorporated Objections and Memorandum. Having considered Defendant's motion to exceed page limitation by two (2) substantive pages, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
+
+Defendant's motion is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462) with Incorporated Objections and Memorandum may exceed 20 pages by two (2) additional pages
+
+DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010.
+
+Kenneth A. Marra United States District Judge
+
+Courtesy Copies: Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748666/EFTA02748666.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748666/EFTA02748666.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..59210eb9717c8d09e487a8a3f90b9762f93843c3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748666/EFTA02748666.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748666.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1419,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.69,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 411.26400000000007,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 411.26400000000007,
+ 102.06
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 102.06
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE \nLIMITATION BY TWO PAGES IN DEFENDANT'S, MOTION FOR \nRECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND \nAPPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED \nFEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND \nMEMORANDUM",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 362.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 515.9159999999999,
+ 362.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 515.9159999999999,
+ 447.12000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 447.12000000000006
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 208
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748666"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748668/EFTA02748668.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748668/EFTA02748668.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a65ccd30c9611ef261e30d70de2b12e1c89903d5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748668/EFTA02748668.md
@@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/.
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION BY TWO PAGES IN DEFENDANT'S, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4,2010 IDE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves to exceed the page limitation of 20 pages by only two (2) pages for the Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462) with Incorporated Objections and Memorandum. In support of his motion, Defendant states:
+
+1. In order to present Defendant's Motion in an organized and understandable manner, the 20 page limitation is required to be exceeded by two (2) pages of substantive argument.
+
+2. The undersigned does not believe that Plaintiff, Jane Doe, will have an objection to this Motion.
+
+WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant Defendant's motion, and enter an order allowing the Motion to exceed the maximum limit of 20 pages by two (2) pages, making the total number of pages twenty-two 2), substantive pages.
+
+> By: MICHA ESQ. Florid ar #617296
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that atrue copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 26th day of February, 2010.
+
+Respectfully su d,
+
+By: ROBERT ON, JR., ESQ.
+
+Florida B No. 224 .2
+
+rcri claw.corn
+
+MICH L J. PIKE, ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar #617296
+
+mvike@bc1claw.com
+
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
+
+515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561/842-2820 Phone
+
+561/515-3148 Fax
+
+(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+## Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Case No. 08-CV-80119-MA
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+
+Merrnelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+
+Suite 2218
+
+Miami, FL 33160
+
+305-931-2200
+
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+
+ssm@sexabuseattomev.com
+
+ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs
+
+In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993,
+
+08-80994
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+
+250 Australian Avenue South
+
+Suite 1400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+
+561-659-8300
+
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+
+iazes4bellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein
+
+, Jaffe, Weissing,M, Fistos
+
+& Lehrman, PL
+
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+
+Suite 2
+
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+
+brad@pathtoiustice.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.
+
+08-80893
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+
+Pro Hac Vice
+
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+
+801-585-5202
+
+801-585-6833 Fax
+
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe
+
+, Esq.
+
+Law Firm, P.A.
+
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561-832-7732
+
+561-832-7137 F
+
+isidrozarciaQbellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.
+
+08-80469
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+
+Miami, FL 33130
+
+305 358-2800
+
+Fax: 305 358-2382
+
+riosefsbernapodhurst.com
+
+kezellapodhurstcom
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748668/EFTA02748668.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748668/EFTA02748668.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd24f884a4789c776777156c82ff815306156060
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748668/EFTA02748668.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,231 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748668.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 3665,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 2.67,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 414.7231750488281,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 414.7231750488281,
+ 111.63201904296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 111.63201904296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION BY \nTWO PAGES IN DEFENDANT'S, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION \nAND/OR REQUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF \nTHE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4,2010 IDE 462), WITH \nINCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 99.144,
+ 370.17
+ ],
+ [
+ 525.8215942382812,
+ 370.17
+ ],
+ [
+ 525.8215942382812,
+ 443.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 99.144,
+ 443.88
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.36799999999997,
+ 261.63
+ ],
+ [
+ 368.04791259765625,
+ 261.63
+ ],
+ [
+ 368.04791259765625,
+ 275.40000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.36799999999997,
+ 275.40000000000003
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service \nJane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey\nCase No. 08-CV-80119-MA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 190.332,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 417.9960000000001,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 417.9960000000001,
+ 124.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 190.332,
+ 124.74
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 218
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 202
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 277
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 60
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748668"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748671/EFTA02748671.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748671/EFTA02748671.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5ffd18b949c7ca2d8c149a20423ac42b963bdf5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748671/EFTA02748671.md
@@ -0,0 +1,210 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRALME
+
+JANE DOE,
+
+Plaintiff
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant
+
+# PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT
+
+COMES NOW the Plaintiff, JANE DOE, by and through her undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 and S.D. Fla. 26.10., and requests the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, to produce the original or best copy of the items listed hereinbelow, at the offices of the Plaintiffs undersigned counsel, for inspection and/or copying within thirty (30) days of service.
+
+### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+
+1. These requests for production are deemed continuing. Pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law, if any information sought by said requests for production is not learned until after they are answered, or if any answers for any reason should later become incorrect, there shall be a continuing duty on the party answering said requests to supplement or change answers previously submitted.
+
+### DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
+
+1. Communication. The term "communication" means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries or otherwise).
+
+2. Document. The term "document" is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of this term in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a), including, without limitation, electronic or computerized data compilations. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term.
+
+EFTA02748671
+
+- 3. Identify (with respect to person). When referring to a person, "to identify" means to give, to the extent known, the person's full name, present or last known address, and when referring to anatural person, additionally, the present or last known place of employment. Once aperson has been identified in accordance with this subparagraph, only the name of the person need be listed in response to subsequent discovery requesting the identification of that person.
+- 4. Identify (with respect to documents). When referring to documents, "to identify" means to give, to the extent known, the (i) type of documents; (ii) general subject matter; (iii) date of the document; and (iv) author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s).
+- 5. Parties. The terms "plaintiff' and "defendant" as. well as a party's full or abbreviated name or a pronoun referring to a party means the party and, where applicable, its officers, directors, employees, partners, corporate parent, subsidiaries or affiliates. This definition is not intended to impose a discovery obligation on any person who is not a party to the litigation.
+- 6. Person. The term "person" is defined as any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity or association.
+- 7. Concerning. The term "concerning" means relating to, referring to, describing, evidencing or constituting.
+- 8. All/Each. The terms "all" and "each" shall be construed as all and each.
+- 9. And/Or. The connectives "and" and "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope.
+- 10. Number. The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice versa.
+- 11. Refer/Relate to. "Refer" or "relate to" means to make astatement about, discuss, describe, reflect, constitute, identify, deal with, consist of, establish, comprise, list, evidence, substantiate or in any way pertain, in whole to in part, to the subject.
+- 12. As used herein the singular shall include the plural, the plural shall include the singular, and the masculine, feminine and neuter shall include each of the other genders.
+
+# DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
+
+- 1. Copies of all telephone records in your or your attorneys' possession from 2002 2005 that in any way relate to you (including all phone lines owned by you or that were used to contact girls for the purposes of scheduling massages for you).
+
+2. All massage appointment books, diaries, computer calendars or scheduling entries, scheduling books or any other writing or correspondence that contains the names of any of the girls that were called, contacted, scheduled, or who otherwise went to your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, for the purpose of giving you a massage.
+
+3. Any and all documentation in your possession that contains Plaintiffs name or that refers to Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, (includes emails, letters, message pads, diaries, appointment books, computer print outs).
+
+4. Any and all photos, videos, downloaded digital prints or any other visual depiction of Plaintiff, or of any other known or suspected minor females introduced to you, directly or indirectly, by Plaintiff.
+
+5. Photos of the inside of your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, that depict the room(s) where the massages took place (including massage table).
+
+6. Any and all documentation of cancelled checks or evidence of payment to Plaintiff of any kind and for any reason whatsoever.
+
+7. All discovery information obtained by you or your attorneys as a result of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you or the Federal investigation against you.
+
+8. All financial documents evidencing asset transfers from 2005 to the present for you personally or any company or corporation owned by you.
+
+9. Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided to local, state, or federal law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal prosecutors investigating your sexual activities with minors.
+
+10. All correspondence between you or your attorneys and state or federal law enforcement or . prosecutors (includes, but is not limited to, letters to and from the State Attorney's office or any agents thereof).
+
+11. Any and all documents reflecting your current net worth.
+
+12. Personal tax returns for all years from 2002 through the present.
+
+13. A photocopy of your passport, including any supplemental pages reflecting travel to locations outside the 50 United States between 2002 and 2008, including any documents or records regarding plane tickets, hotel receipts, or transportation arrangements.
+
+14. A sworn statement of your net worth (including adetailed financial statement depicting all current assets and liabilities).
+
+IS. All financial statements or affidavits produced by you for any reason, to any person, company, entity or corporation since 2005.
+
+16. All medical records of Defendant Epstein from Dr. Stephan Alexander.
+
+### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+WE HEREBY CERTIFY that atrue and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been provided via United States mail to the following addressees, this 13day of March, 2009.
+
+Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire Michael J. Pike, Esquire Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP 515 North Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 rcrit@bciclaw.com mpike©bciclaw.com
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esquire Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 jageso®bellsouth.net
+
+Michael R. Tein, Esquire Tein, P.L. 3059 Grand Avenue Suite 340 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 teindtlewistein.com
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD ASSOCIATES, LLC
+
+By:
+
+Brad Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Florida Bar No. 542075 2028 Street Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 Telephone: 954-414-8033 Facsimile: 954-924-1530 E-Mail: be@bradedwardslaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell Attorney for Plaintiff Pro Hac Vice 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E -Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+JANE DOE,
+
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 — MARRAIla
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+v.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant. /
+
+## DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (dated 03/23109)
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ('EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P., 34, and S.D. Fla. 26.1.G., serves his response to Plaintiff JANE DOE's First Request For Production, dated March 23, 2009.
+
+Request No. 1: Copies of all telephone records in your or your attorneys' possession from 2002 through 2005 that in any way relate to you (including all phone lines owned by you or that were used to contact girls for the purposes of scheduling massages for you.)
+
+Response: Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+Request No. 2: All massage appointment books, diaries, computer calendars or scheduling entities, scheduling books or any other writing or correspondence that contains the names of any of the girls that were called, contacted, scheduled or who
+
+otherwise went to your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, for the purpose of giving you a massage.
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+**Request No. 3:** Any and all documentation in your possession that contains Plaintiff's name or that refers to Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, (includes e-mails, letters, message pads, diaries, appointment books, computer print outs).
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+**Request No. 4:** Any and all photos, videos, downloaded digital prints or any other visual depiction of Plaintiff, or of any other known or suspected minor females introduced to you, directly or indirectly, by Plaintiff.
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+**Request No. 5:** Photos of the inside of your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, that depict the room(s) where the massages took place (including massage table).
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+**Request No. 6:** Any and all documentation of cancelled checks or evidence of payment to Plaintiff of any kind and for any reason whatsoever.
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+**Request No. 7:** All discovery information obtained by you or your attorneys as a result of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you or the Federal investigation against you.
+
+**Response:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible
+
+pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege.
+
+Request No. 8: All financial documents evidencing asset transfers from 2005 to the present for you personally or any company or corporation owned by you.
+
+Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+Request No. 9: Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided to local, state, or federal law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal prosecutors investigating your sexual activities with minors.
+
+Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege.
+
+Request No. 10: All correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, letters to and from the State Attorney's office or any agents thereof).
+
+**Response:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege.
+
+**Request No. 11:** Any and all documents reflecting your current net worth.
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+**Request No. 12:** Personal tax returns for all years from 2002 through the present.
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution; overly broad.
+
+**Request No. 13:** A photocopy of your passport, including any supplemental pages reflecting travel to locations outside the 50 United States between 2020 and 2008,
+
+including any documents or records regarding plane tickets, hotel receipts, or transportation arrangements.
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional protections and privileges, the scope of information is so overbroad that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; compiling such information over a six year period would be unduly burdensome and time consuming.
+
+**Request No. 14:** A sworn statement of your net worth (including a detailed financial statement depicting all current assets and liabilities).
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+**Request No. 15:** All financial statements or affidavits produced by you for any reason, to any person, company, entity or corporation since 2005.
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution; overly broad.
+
+Request No. 16: All medical records of Defendant Epstein from Dr. Stephan Alexander.
+
+Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+# Certificate of Service
+
+WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the f Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this regoing has been sent via U.S. day of May, 2009.
+
+Brad Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-522-3456 Fax: 954-527-8663 bedwards( rra-law.com Counsel for Plaintiff Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax casselloelaw.utah.edu Co-counsel for Plaintiff
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 561-835-8691 Fax jaqesqabellsouth.net Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Respectfully subm
+
+RITTON, JR., ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar No. 224162
+
+rcrit bciclaw.com
+
+BURMAN, CRI1TON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
+
+515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561/842-2820 Phone
+
+561/515-3148 Fax
+
+(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748671/EFTA02748671.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748671/EFTA02748671.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac5f13fba1194b148f9407851afe621185f80297
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748671/EFTA02748671.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,666 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748671.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 13,
+ "chars": 25756,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 12.72,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 198.89999999999998,
+ 88.28999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.2821044921875,
+ 88.28999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.2821044921875,
+ 116.63999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.89999999999998,
+ 116.63999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 113.22,
+ 306.99
+ ],
+ [
+ 502.28961181640625,
+ 306.99
+ ],
+ [
+ 502.28961181640625,
+ 324.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 113.22,
+ 324.0
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 223.99200000000002,
+ 473.03999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.4600524902344,
+ 473.03999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.4600524902344,
+ 486.80999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 223.99200000000002,
+ 486.80999999999995
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.856,
+ 583.2
+ ],
+ [
+ 414.9311828613281,
+ 583.2
+ ],
+ [
+ 414.9311828613281,
+ 596.97
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.856,
+ 596.97
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DOCUMENTS REQUESTED",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 235.00799999999998,
+ 601.02
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.2732849121094,
+ 601.02
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.2732849121094,
+ 616.41
+ ],
+ [
+ 235.00799999999998,
+ 616.41
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 230.724,
+ 477.09000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.51806640625,
+ 477.09000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.51806640625,
+ 490.9076232910156
+ ],
+ [
+ 230.724,
+ 490.9076232910156
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.3550109863281,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.3550109863281,
+ 101.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 101.25
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S \nFIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (dated 03/23109)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 146.88,
+ 336.15
+ ],
+ [
+ 472.1015930175781,
+ 336.15
+ ],
+ [
+ 472.1015930175781,
+ 364.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 146.88,
+ 364.5
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 248.47200000000004,
+ 323.19
+ ],
+ [
+ 376.1990661621094,
+ 323.19
+ ],
+ [
+ 376.1990661621094,
+ 338.51800537109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 248.47200000000004,
+ 338.51800537109375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 292
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 468
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 313
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 259
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 143
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 303
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 477
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 318
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 66
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748671"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748684/EFTA02748684.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748684/EFTA02748684.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e572d2c2f43d342f89c38ae269ad9459da58f70a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748684/EFTA02748684.md
@@ -0,0 +1,280 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAall
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+### DEFENDANT'S, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW
+
+Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order (DE 462) pursuant to Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 4, Rule 4(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e). In support, Epstein states:
+
+#### I. Procedural Background
+
+Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is filed at DE (194). Defendant's Response in Opposition is filed at DE (339), and the arguments set forth therein are incorporated herein by reference as if completely set forth herein as each apply to request numbers 10, 12 and 13.
+
+Significantly, these cases have been consolidated for discovery. Therefore, consistent rulings must apply. In making those rulings, this Court must continue to recognize that the allegations in the related cases cannot be forgotten. (Eg., see DE 242, 293, and 462). Production of information in one case could provide alink in the chain of evidence used to prosecute Epstein for acrime or provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence in another case and in another jurisdiction. Id. and infra.
+
+The Request for Production and the responses thereto are attached as Composite Exhibit "A".
+
+#### H. The Fifth Amendment
+
+The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial compulsion and provides, in relevant part, that "[njo person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be awitness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not only to answers that would support acriminal conviction, but extends also to those answers which would furnish alink in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for acrime. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). Information is protected by the privilege not only if it would support acriminal conviction, but also in those instances where "the responses would merely `provide alead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate." See United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cat denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC vLeach 156 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001).
+
+Moreover, the act of production itself may implicitly communicate statements and, for this reason, the Fifth Amendment privilege also encompasses the circumstances where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would "implicitly authenticate" the requested documents, the act of producing responsive documents is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, I F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution and also covers those circumstances where the disclosures would not be directly incriminating, but could provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence).
+
+# III. The Requests For Production, Argument And Memorandum Of Law
+
+## a. Requests Numbers 7, 9 and 10
+
+Request No. 7: All discovery information obtained by you or your attorneys as a result of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you or the Federal investigation against you.
+
+Request No. 9: Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided to local, state, or federal law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal prosecutors investigating your sexual activities with minors.
+
+Request No. 10: All correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, letters to and from the State Attorney's office or any agents thereof).
+
+Response to Request Numbers 7, 9 and 10: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege.
+
+In light of the Court's Order and the Reply which further defines exactly what Plaintiff seeks (DE 354, p. 3), Epstein is now permitted to cautiously elaborate on his responses.
+
+As to Request Number 7, Epstein and his attorneys do not have any "discovery information" provided to them by the federal government.'
+
+As to Request Number 9, Epstein has not been given any evidentiary materials or evidentiary documents by the federal government.
+
+Request No. 10 contravenes the critical public policy of encouraging the resolution of criminal prosecutions without trial and the concomitant understanding that defendants will be considerably more likely to engage in full and discussions with the government if they need not fear that statements they or their counsel make to government prosecutors will be used against them to their detriment. The critical importance of plea bargaining to the criminal justice system has long been recognized. "[W]hatever might be the situation in an ideal world, the fact is that the guilty plea and the often concomitant plea bargain are important components of this country's criminal justice system. Properly administered, they can benefit all concerned." Bordenkircher v. Haves, 434 U.S. 357, 361-62 (1978), quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71 (1977). To encourage defendants to participate in the plea negotiation process, rules have developed to prohibit admission into evidence against the defendant of any and all statements he or his counsel acting on his behalf makes to government prosecutors during the plea negotiation process. This confidentiality protection is embodied in both Fed. R. Evid. 410 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f). While these rules by their express terms refer only to admissibility of evidence, the
+
+As set forth infra, the federal government provided Epstein with the NPA and the list attached thereto. The NPA is now a public document and the list, pursuant to Brad Edward's Agreement with Judge J. Colbath, remains confidential.
+
+2 FRE 410(4) is particularly directed to communications in matters which, like Epstein's, did not result in aplea of guilty to at tx federal charge. Fla. Stat. §90.410 provides parallel protections in state criminal matters.
+
+purposes and policies underlying these rules in instructive in this context, in which acivil p laintiff seeks discovery of documents falling within the scope of these two rules.
+
+Rule 410 was created to promote active plea negotiations and plea bargains, which our Supreme Court has acknowledged are "important components of this country's criminal justice system.". . . Our Court of Appeals has held that "in order for plea bargaining to work effectively and fairly, adefendant must be free to negotiate without fear that this statements will later be used against him.". Indeed, absent the protection of Rule 410, "the possibility of self-incrimination would discourage defendants from being completely candid and open during plea negotiations."
+
+534 F.Supp.2d 63, 66-67 (D.D.C. 2008), quoting United States v. 617 F.2d 677, 683 (D.C.Cir. 1980). See Lg., United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 205, 207 (1995)(purpose of the rules is to encourage plea bargaining, and rules "creat[e], in effect, a privilege of the defendant," quoting 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence ¶410[05] at 410-43 (1994)); United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir. 2005)("The underlying purpose of Rule 410 is to promote plea negotiations by permitting defendants to talk to prosecutors without sacrificing their ability to defend themselves if no disposition agreement is reached"); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, Advisory Committee Notes, 1979 Amendment ("the purpose of Fed. R. Ev. 410 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(6) [now Rule 11(f)] is to promote the unrestrained candor which produces effective plea discussions").3
+
+Additional illustration of the high degree of confidentially accorded settlement negotiations is found in Fed. R. Evid. 408, which precludes the introduction into evidence communications made during settlement negotiations. The purposes underlying Rule 408 are essentially the same as those underlying Rules 11(1) and 410: "to encourage non-litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. MB 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). Sse, Lg., Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying Rule 408 . . . is the promotion of the public policy favoring the compromise and settlement of disputes that would otherwise be discouraged with the admission of such evidence"); Bankcard America, Inc. v. Universal Bancard Systems, Inc., 203 F.3d 477, 483 (7th Cir. 2000)("Because settlement talks might be chilled if such discussions could later be used as admissions of liability at trial, the rule's purpose is to encourage settlements"); In re A.H. Robins Co Inc., 197 B.R. 568, 572 (E.D.Va. 1994)("Rule 408 aims to settlement discussions in an individual lawsuit, and therefore insulates the particular parties to asettlement discussion from possible adverse consequences of their and open statements"). So crucial is this policy of confidentiality to the functioning of our federal court system that some courts have held that communications falling within the parameters of Rule 408 are covered by asettlement privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. See, Lg., Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976, 979-983 (6th Cir. 2003).
+
+Given the powerful and long-standing policy of according confidentiality to settlement negotiations in both the civil and criminal context, civil plaintiffs should, at a minimum, be required to demonstrate real and concrete need for the material. They should not be permitted to rummage through such sensitive documents based on nothing more than a vague and contentless statement that the materials are "likely to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence." Motion to Compel at 12 n.3, which is all that plaintiff offers as to Request No. 10. This is particularly so given the reality that parties often take positions or offer potential compromise solutions during plea negotiations which are inconsistent with the litigation strategy they will pursue if the case goes to trial. As one court has explained in the civil context:
+
+There exists a strong public interest in favor of secrecy of matters discussed by parties during settlement negotiations. . . . The ability to negotiate and settle acase without trial fosters amore efficient, more cost-effective, and significantly less burdened judicial system. . . . Parties must be able to abandon their adversarial tendencies to some degree. They must be able to make hypothetical concessions, offer creative quid pro quos, and generally make statements that would otherwise belie their litigation efforts.
+
+Goodyear Tire, 332 F.3d at 980. The same is no less true in the plea negotiation context. The free availability in discovery to civil plaintiffs of communications made during the plea negotiation process has profound potential to chill I. and open communications during that process so crucial to the functioning of the criminal justice system in any criminal case which has potential to become acivil or regulatory matter as well. Such defendants will be loath to be fully forthcoming during plea discussions or communications and indeed, if the potential civil or regulatory consequences are sufficiently severe, may decline to enter into plea negotiations at all, if they must fear that their communications will be made available to civil plaintiffs in discovery, thus entirely defeating both the purpose and spirit of Rules 410 and 11(f).
+
+In addition, the communications made during the plea negotiation process contain fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particularly given the strong public policy in favor of confidentiality of plea/settlement negotiations, the disclosure of such information should be treated as falling within the selective waiver provisions of Fed. R. Evid. 502 and not be treated as an open-ended waiver of the attorney-client and work product privileges.
+
+The correspondence in question contained what would constitute paradigm opinion work product with the single caveat that the opinions of each counsel, Epstein's and the United States Attorney's were exchanged with each other pursuant to the overall expectation that they were safeguarded from disclosure by the policies of confidentiality that protect communications during settlement and plea negotiations. The requested communications include the views of
+
+Page No. 8
+
+Epstein's counsel in the criminal case regarding why a federal prosecution was inappropriate, why the federal statutes did not fit the alleged offense conduct, why certain of the alleged victims were not credible. It also includes Epstein's counsel's views on the limits and inapplicability of certain elements of 18 U.S.C. §2255, one of the principal causes of action in the Jane Doe cases. This opinion work product should not be disclosed when it was incorporated into heartland plea negotiations that are accorded protection under the federal rules of evidence. It is the disclosure of such legal opinions — and not just their admissibility — that should be protected from a civil discovery request that lacked any statement as to why this information was even nereqsary to the fair litigation of the civil cases.
+
+Concomitantly, to the extent that the request is now limited to communications from the Government to Epstein, see DE 54, pgs 3 and 8, the narrowed request implicate the same concerns for the opinions, the work product, and the expectation of privacy of the United States Attorney or Assistant United States Attorney who authored the many letters received by counsel for Epstein. As such, to the extent that the Court is considering affirming any part of the Magistrate-Judge's opinion allowing request 10 that would result in the required disclosure of communications from the Government counsel to Epstein, that notice be provided to the United States Attorney so they may intervene to protect their opinion work product, assert their rights to confidentiality under FRE 408 and 410, and assert where appropriate their interests in grand jury secrecy and in the privacy rights of their witness who in at least one document are identified. The defendant requests that if the Court were considering allowing the disclosure of any portion of the communications sent by Epstein to the Government which are within the original request for production but apparently not plaintiff's latest filing, DE 354, pg 3, the Court first consider
+
+Page No. 9
+
+permitting the defendant to provide a privilege log that would identify specific portions of the correspondence that contains the opinion work product of counsel for Epstein
+
+Here, the information requested involves negotiations with the USAO and its investigation. If the USAO cannot be compelled to release its investigation(s) and related workproduct, how can Epstein be compelled to disclose same in violation of his constitutional rights? He cannot. Rules 11(f), 408, and 410 all counsel strongly against the discoverability of such documents. The court, is requested to reverse the Magistrate-Judge's order as to paragraph 10. Alternatively, the Court is requested to permit a privilege log that would be filed by Epstein's counsel — and if they so desire the Government — particularizing the prejudice to their work product and to the values otherwise protected by FRE 408 and 410 on a document by document basis
+
+Epstein also continues to maintain that the requested correspondence is protected under the Fifth Amendment, as it could furnish alink in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him for acrime or provide the federal government with information that provides alead or clue to evidence having a tendency to incriminate Epstein. See infra; Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d at 1239; Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. at 159; and SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d at 494.
+
+As this court has recognized, the threat of criminal prosecution is real and present as Epstein remains under the scrutiny of the USAO, which is explained and/or acknowledged in the Court's Orders (DE 242 and 462). As this Court knows, Epstein entered into aNon-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the USAO for the Federal Southern District of Florida. However, the NPA does not provide Epstein with any protection from criminal investigation or prosecution in other than in the Southern District of Florida. As the court has acknowledged in its orders (e.g.,
+
+Page No. 10
+
+DE 462), complaints in these related matters allege that Epstein both resided in and allegedly engaged in illegal sexual conduct in districts outside the Southern District of Florida, and that he allegedly lured economically disadvantaged girls to homes other than in Palm Beach. Thus, the fact that there exists a NPA does not mean that Epstein is free from a reasonable fear of future criminal prosecution. In fact, this court acknowledged that "[t]he danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this case is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary as required." (DE 242, p. 10).
+
+As such, in the event Epstein is required to produce information provided to him by the federal government — or provided by Epstein to the Government - that information could provide a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein of a crime outside the protections of the NPA. Given the nature of the allegations, to wit, a scheme and plan of sexual misconduct, this court should find it entirely reasonable for Epstein to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege as to request Number 10, especially since it is broad enough to encompass information that could violate Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privileges. Hubbell, supra. In responding to the request, Epstein would be compelled admit that such documents exist, admit that the documents were in his possession or control, and were authentic. In other words, the very act of production of the category of documents requested would implicitly communicate "statements of fact." Hubbell,supra; Hoffman,supra.
+
+Moreover, the production of such information may lead to the identity of witnesses that could testify against Epstein and those that may have knowledge or are in possession of evidence that could be used against Epstein in another district. This court has already ruled that Epstein can properly invoke his Fifth Amendment right to nat identify a person who may have a photograph
+
+Page No. I I
+
+or physical evidence pertaining to the alleged events. (DE 242). For these reasons, Epstein's justified concern with regard to answering the above request and the resulting waiver of his Fifth Amendment Privilege in this regard and/or providing self-incriminating information is substantial, real and not merely imaginative.
+
+# Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order
+
+The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows full well, attached to the NPA is alist which delineates alleged victims. Once the NM was made public, Judge Colbath, with the agreement of the Palm Beach Post, Brad Esq. and Spencer Kuvin, Esq. agreed that the "list" would remain private. As such, Request for Production Number 10 seeks information that may violate others third-party privacy rights in that certain names may be mentioned in correspondence, including those on the "list." As noted in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, at fn. 10 (1972):
+
+In Stanley, 394 U.S., at 564, 89 S.Ct., at 1247, the Court stated:`(A)Iso fundamental is the right to be free, except in very limited circumstances, from unwanted governmental intrusions into one's privacy." The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man.' [Citations omitted].
+
+The fundamental right of privacy is not only guaranteed under by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, but also under the Constitution of the State of Florida, Art. I, Sect. 23. As summarized by the Florida Supreme Court in Shaktman v. State, 553 So.2d 148, 150-51 (Fla. 1989):
+
+The right of privacy, assured to Florida's citizens, demands that individuals be free from uninvited observation of or interference in those aspects of their lives which fall within the ambit of this zone of privacy unless the intrusion is
+
+Page No. 12
+
+warranted by the necessity of a compelling state interest. In an opinion which predated the adoption of section 23, the First District aptly characterized the nature of this right.
+
+A fundamental aspect of personhood's integrity is the power to control what we shall reveal about our intimate selves, to whom, and for what purpose.
+
+Bryon, Harless, Schaffer, Reid & Assocs., Inc. v. State ex rel, Schellenberz 360 So.2d 83, 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), quashed and remanded on other rounds, 379 So.2d 633 (Fla.1980). Because this power is exercised in varying degrees by differing individuals, the parameters of an individual's privacy can be dictated only by that individual. The central concern is the inviolability of one's own thought, person, and personal action. The inviolability of that right assures its preeminence over "majoritarian sentiment" and thus cannot be universally defined by consensus.
+
+(Emphasis added).
+
+Clearly, the nature of the question would require Epstein to produce information that may identify third parties (including alleged victims), which would necessarily thwart such individuals' rights to assert their constitutional right of privacy as guaranteed under the United States and Florida Constitutions. See generally Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra at 454-455 (the right encompasses privacy in one's sexual matters and is not limited to the marital relationship). The Magistrate's Order did not address this issue.
+
+Federal law provides crime victims with rights similar to those afforded by the Florida constitution which includes, but is not limited to, "the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any pubic court. . .proceeding involving the crime. . . . ," "the right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding. . . . ," and "the right to be heard." 15 Fla. Jur.2d Crim.Proc. §1839; Fla. Stat. 960.0021. Based upon the foregoing, any alleged victim that may be identified in any of the requested information must first be notified, which means that this court must, at the very least, conduct an in camera inspection of any and all information to determine which alleged victim must be placed on notice that their identity may be revealed or redact their names
+
+Page No. 13
+
+in camera. See also Fla. Stat. §794.03, §794.024 and §794.026. The right to privacy encompasses at least two different kinds of interests, the individual interests of disclosing personal matters and the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions. Favalora v. Sidaway, 966 So.2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
+
+Accordingly, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, and under applicable law, Defendant's assertion of the protections afforded under the 5th, 6'h, and 14ih Amendments of the United States Constitution are required to be upheld. In addition, this Court must address the privacy rights of others as outlined above.
+
+### b. Request Number 12
+
+Request No. 12: Personal tax returns for all years from 2002 through the present.
+
+Response to Request Numbers : Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit without waiving my Fifth Amendment constitutional rights and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution; overly broad.
+
+As set forth in more detail in DE 282 and 283, which were provided to the court in camera, Epstein cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to his financial history and condition without waiving his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, which includes his tax returns. Asking for Epstein's personal tax returns is financial in nature and it is confidential, proprietary and seeks information much of which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be
+
+Page No. 14
+
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Importantly, the Magistrate did not make a ruling on relevancy as to the personal tax returns, and the Plaintiff has not met the burden of establishing a "compelling need" for the tax returns.
+
+Producing the specified information, in full, would result in testimonial disclosures that would communicate statements of fact and would require Epstein to produce the returns and thereby "stipulate" to their genuiness, their existence, his control of the records, and their authenticity as his executed tax returns even though his possession of such records are by no means a foregone conclusion. Again, the information sought relates to potential federal claims of violations. See DE 282 and 283, in camera. Production would therefore constitute a testimonial admission of the genuineness, the existence, and Epstein's control of such records, and thus presents areal and substantial danger of self-incrimination in this case, in other related cases and as well in areas that could result in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128.
+
+The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's personal tax returns must be produced because they are allegedly a mandatory part of acivil regulatory scheme and have assumed some public aspect. (DE 462, p.12) However, "required records" are ordinarily records collected by highly regulated business (e.g., physicians) wherein the records themselves have assumed public aspects which render them analogous to public documents. See In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641- 643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). Usually, these documents are known to more than the filer and the agency in which the document(s) were filed (i.e., known to other persons of the general public). Id. Even though the IRS may have certain returns, they remain confidential under 26 U.S.C. §6103
+
+from any disclosures and are therefore different than a regulated/public record that can be accessed by the public. In Trudeau v. New York State Consumer Protection Bd., 237 F.R.D. 325 (N.D.N.Y. 2006), the court maintained that "[r]outine discovery of tax returns is not the rule but rather the exception." Id. at 331. The Court went on to note that [f]or nearly the past thirty-five years, tax returns have been considered `confidential,' pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6103." Id. Because of the principle of confidentiality, it further noted, "courts in the Second Circuit have found personal financial information to be presumptively confidential or cloaked with a qualified immunity," and must, therefore, "balance the countervailing policies of liberal discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil procedure against maintaining the confidentiality of such documents." Id.
+
+To achieve that balance, courts in the Second Circuit have developed a"more stringent" standard than that set forth in the rules. To order disclosure of tax returns, acourt must find that "the requested tax information is relevant to the subject matter of the action" and that "there is a compelling need for this information because the information contained therein is not otherwise readily available." Id. The Magistrate's Order makes no such finding in the instant matter. In fact, the burden of showing compelling need is on the party seeking discovery, but once a compelling need has been found, the party whose tax return information has been requested has the burden to "provide alternative sources for this sensitive information. Id. If the requested information is available from alternate sources, disclosure should not be compelled. Potential alternate sources to which the court pointed were gathering the information through deposition or disclosure in an affidavit by the requested party of net worth, wealth, and income. Id. at 331-32. ,wee Barton v. Cascade Regional Blood Services, 2007 WL 2288035 (W.D.Wash. 2007)("Tax returns are confidential communications between the taxpayer and the government [citing
+
+§6103] and although not privileged from discovery there is a recognized policy against unnecessary public disclosure The Court finds no compelling need which overcomes this recognized policy"). Courts have broadly construed these provisions to embody a general federal policy against indiscriminate disclosure of tax returns from any source. Federal Say. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Krueger, 55 F.R.D. 514-15 (N.D. III. 1972)("it is the opinion of this court that [§6I03] reflect[s] avalid public policy against disclosure of income tax returns. This policy is grounded in the interest of the government in full disclosure of all the taxpayer's income which thereby maximizes revenue. To indiscriminately compel ataxpayer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to alawsuit would undermine this policy"); see also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "public policy against unnecessary disclosure [of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns").
+
+In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at \*2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and that courts should be reluctant to order disclosure during discovery. Citing, Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Energy Gathering, Inc., 2 F.3d 1397, 1411 (5'h Cir. 1993); DeMasi v. Weiss, Inc., 669 F.2d 114, 119-20 (3d Cir. 1982)(noting existence of public policy against disclosure of tax returns); Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (91h Cir. 1975). The court in Pendlebury agreed that parties seeking the production of tax returns must demonstrate (1) relevance of the tax returns to the subject matter of the dispute and (2) a compelling need for the tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available. Id. at \*2; see also Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001);
+
+MB v. Hallaarten & Co., 34 F.R.D. 482, 483-84 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). Thus, before the Court can order production of the requested returns in this matter, the Plaintiff must satisfy the "relevance" and "compelling need" standards. The Magistrate's Order fails to address the "relevancy" standard and Plaintiff fails to provide same with supporting argument and case law, and the Plaintiff fails to delineate any "compelling need" or availability of networth from other sources (e.g., a stipulation as to net worth, which is certainly an alternative means). To the extent that the Court determines that the tax returns are relevant and that there is a compelling need for at least their disclosure of Epstein's wealth for punitive damage purposes, Epstein would agree to stipulate, through his attorneys, that he has anet worth of over \$50,000,000. Such a stipulation more than satisfies any necessity for the disclosure of the tax returns or any additional net worth information.
+
+This court already ruled in DE 462 that Epstein is not required to produce his financial history information to the extent same seeks to identify Epstein's assets, where such assets are located and whether such assets have been transferred. Id. Moreover, the names and addresses of his accounts, financial planners and money managers were also sustained pursuant to the Fifth Amendment. Id. Therefore, to the extent this court orders production of tax returns and to the extent Epstein's personal tax returns contain such information, same should be redacted and subject to heightened confidentiality. However, this can only be done subsequent to an in camera hearing wherein this court can make a ruling on relevancy, production, redaction and confidentiality; but only after the Plaintiff shows a compelling need.
+
+Furthermore, Epstein's complicated business transactions have no relevancy to this lawsuit and, therefore, evidence of same should not be produced. The Fifth Amendment is asafe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This request,
+
+if answered, may result in compelled production and/or testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other related inquiries would have the potential to provide alink in achain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+Accordingly, any compelled testimony that provides a"lead or clue to a source of evidence of such [a] crime" is protected by Fifth Amendment. SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d at 494. Questions seeking "testimony" regarding names of witnesses, leads to phone or travel records, or financial records that would provide leads to tax or money laundering or unlicensed money transmittal investigations are protected. See also Hoffman vUnited States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)("the right against self-incrimination may be invoked if the answer would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute for a crime").
+
+## c. Request Number 13
+
+Request No. 13: A photocopy of your passport, including any supplemental pages reflecting travel to locations outside the 50 United States between 2002 and 2008, including any documents or records regarding plane tickets, hotel receipts, or transportation arrangements.
+
+Response: Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit without risking waiver of my Fifth Amendment rights and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional protections
+
+> and privileges, the scope of information is so overbroad that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; compiling such information over a six year period would be unduly burdensome and time consuming.
+
+As to Request Number 13, Defendant provided this court with sufficient argument at DE 282 and DE 283 detailing why the production of information showing Epstein's whereabouts could provide alink in the chain of evidence regarding: (a) Epstein's air travel within the United States and Foreign Territories; (b) Epstein's communications with others relating to or referring to females coming into the United States from other countries; and (c) Epstein's personal calendars and schedules. Given that the essential proof of an allegation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) would include travel records, schedules regarding trips and locations, flight records, calendars, and transportation arrangements, the court found that Epstein had made amore particularized showing because producing such information "could reveal the availability to him and/or use by him of interstate facilities and thus would constitute alink in the chain of evidence that could potentially expose [Epstein] to the dangers of self incrimination." (DE 293, p.6) See infra, regarding private aircraft.
+
+The Magistrate's Order (DE 462) provides that Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege does not extend to his passport because its existence is known to the government or is a "foregone conclusion." Id. at p. 11. First, the magistrate's order presupposes that Epstein has all his passports from 2002 up through to the current date and that the government has an exact copy of same. Second, the Order presupposes that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol ("CPB") keeps a record and/or has maintained records of Epstein's travel and whereabouts from 2002 up through to the current date. Third, assuming Epstein traveled internationally, the Order presupposes that the CPB has records of all of Epstein's destinations and that other countries have shared that information with the CBP.
+
+For instance, CBP now offers "Global Entry" to enter the United States by kiosk. However, it is unclear whether the Global Entry kiosk records and copies the pages of a traveler's destinations outside of the United States, or does it simply record exit from and entry back into the United States?5 Moreover, it is unclear whether CBP maintains the Sample Customs Declaration Form for any period of time, which form sets out (i.e., if filled out) the countries visited by atraveler.6 This Court cannot Compel Epstein to produce information in violation of his Fifth Amendment by simply stating that Epstein's passport is "known to the government" or is a "forgone conclusion." In fact, from the websites listed herein, any CBP documents or forms filled out by atraveler take on a complete different form when compared to an original passport, which is initially issued with blank pages. This Court would be hardpressed to find that the CBP has an exact copy of every page of every traveler's passport. Obviously, this would create more document management than CBP anticipates on its website.
+
+Moreover, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §122.2, pilots of private aircraft are required to electronically transmit passenger and crew manifest information for all flights arriving into and/or departing out of the United States. As this court knows, Mr. has conducted extensive discovery, has questioned individuals as to whether Epstein owns private aircraft and has obtained certain flight manifests. Arguably, if such a procedure were followed in Epstein's case pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §122.2, then Epstein's passport would arguably take on a substantially different form when compared to the information maintained by the CBP (i.e., information that was electronically transferred). Under that circumstance, CLIP would not have an exact copy of Epstein's passports. Accordingly, the assumptions made in the Magistrate's Order have serious Fifth Amendment implications in that the exact information sought is not
+
+5 Lc" gsg. 6 htto://www.customs.aov/xo/cgov/travellvacation/sample declaration form.xml htto://www.customs.gov/xo/czov/travel/trusted traveler/aloha' entry/
+
+"known to the government" and is not a "forgone conclusion" in that the government is not likely to have an exact copy of Epstein's passports.
+
+Again, Plaintiff's request for Epstein's passport "reflecting travel to locations outside the 50 United States between 2002 and 2008, is no different from the requests this Court has already ruled upon and sustained Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege in response thereto. (DE 292). In summary, this court reasoned that:
+
+"[On this and the other civil actions, Plaintiff's allege that Epstein violated certain federal and state criminal statutes in an attempt to make claims against Epstein ranging from sexual battery to intentional infliction of emotional distress. The lynchpin for the exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), which figures in some of the complaints filed, is `the use of any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce' and the analogous essential element of 18 U.S.C. §2423(b), which also figures in some of the Complaints, is `travel[s] in interstate commerce or travels into the United States or . . . travels in foreign commerce.' Accordingly, requiring Epstein to provide responses. . .would in essence be compelling him to provide assertions of fact, thereby admitting that such documents existed and further admitting that the documents in his possession or control were authentic.
+
+As such, if you believe Plaintiff's footnote 4 at (DE 210), responding to this request could very well implicate Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege. The allegations of Epstein's use of interstate commerce and travel and any compelled production is clearly aviolation of Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights' Based upon the arguments set forth in DE 283 (which is incorporated herein), this Court sustained Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege. That same ruling should apply here. (DE 293). If not, this court may be requiring Epstein to produce a log of his travels, which this Court already sustained under the Fifth Amendment.
+
+Plaintiff must also show that the requested information is relevant to the disputed issues of the underlying action. See Young Circle Garage. LLC. v. Konnel, 916 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA
+
+Once again, a ruling on these issues cannot be made in a vacuum. This court must, as it has done in the past, consider the other related cases and the allegations made therein when considering whether a response to a particular discovery requests would implicate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. leg DEs 242, 283 and 462.
+
+2005); see also Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Daisy Worldwide, Inc., 702 So. 2d 263 (Ha. 3d DCA 1997). Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden and, in doing so, has also failed to show any substantial need for the documents.
+
+Wherefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court issue and order:
+
+- a. finding that the danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this case relative to the above requests is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary;
+- b. sustaining Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege as it relates to the above requests and denying Plaintiff's Motion in that regard;
+- c. reversing and/or revising the Magistrate's Order (DE 462) relative to Request Numbers 10, 12 and 13 and entering an amended order sustaining Epstein's objections to the Magistrate's Order as to those specific requests and not requiring him to produce information relative to same; and/or
+- d. remanding this appeal to the Magistrate-Judge for her reconsideration of these portions of her order;
+- e. alternatively, if this court rules that any of the information requested herein is relavent, it shall only do so after an in camera hearing and only after this court ensures that each and every documents produced is the subject of a heightenedconfidentality order;
+ - f. for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
+
+Respectfully ted,
+
+E, ESQ. 296
+
+#### Certificate of tiers ice
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that atrue copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 26th day of February, 2010.
+
+Respectfully s
+
+By:
+
+ROB TTON, JR., ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar N . 224162
+
+rcri cla
+
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar #617296
+
+mnike@bc1claw.com
+
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
+
+515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561/842-2820 Phone
+
+561/515-3148 Fax
+
+(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+### Certificate of Service
+
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey E •
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-MA
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mennelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ssmalsexabuseattorney.com
+
+, Jaffe, Weissing, Fistos & Lehrman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 brad(apathtqiustice.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-
+
+ahorowitz@sexabuseattornev.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 0840069, 08-80119, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 iaaesa@bellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein
+
+80893
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax casselligalaw.utah.edu
+
+Co-counsiiiihilaituiff Jane Doe
+
+Firm, li Law Esq. PA. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F bidroRarciagbellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 rjosefsberu@podhurst.com kezell®podhurst.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748684/EFTA02748684.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748684/EFTA02748684.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3cc29a63b53431eaab25bec10d87d83d7f6825b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748684/EFTA02748684.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1142 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748684.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 24,
+ "chars": 49381,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 4.27,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 77.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 411.26400000000007,
+ 77.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 411.26400000000007,
+ 104.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 104.49
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT'S, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR \nRULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER \nDATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND \nMEMORANDUM OF LAW",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 82.00800000000001,
+ 336.96
+ ],
+ [
+ 538.5600000000001,
+ 336.96
+ ],
+ [
+ 538.5600000000001,
+ 394.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 82.00800000000001,
+ 394.47
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "I. Procedural Background",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 228.276,
+ 518.4000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 393.36846923828125,
+ 518.4000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 393.36846923828125,
+ 532.1700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 228.276,
+ 532.1700000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "H. The Fifth Amendment",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 230.724,
+ 215.46000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 384.948,
+ 215.46000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 384.948,
+ 228.41999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 230.724,
+ 228.41999999999996
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "III. The Requests For Production, Argument And Memorandum Of Law",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 111.384,
+ 242.18999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 505.51199999999994,
+ 242.18999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 505.51199999999994,
+ 259.43316650390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 111.384,
+ 259.43316650390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "a. Requests Numbers 7, 9 and 10",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 211.14,
+ 269.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 406.7537536621094,
+ 269.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 406.7537536621094,
+ 286.3994140625
+ ],
+ [
+ 211.14,
+ 286.3994140625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 145.656,
+ 193.59
+ ],
+ [
+ 485.8188781738281,
+ 193.59
+ ],
+ [
+ 485.8188781738281,
+ 210.89349365234375
+ ],
+ [
+ 145.656,
+ 210.89349365234375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "b. Request Number 12",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 304.56
+ ],
+ [
+ 378.828,
+ 304.56
+ ],
+ [
+ 378.828,
+ 319.53851318359375
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 319.53851318359375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "c. Request Number 13",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 240.516,
+ 474.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 384.35174560546875,
+ 474.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 384.35174560546875,
+ 491.613525390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 240.516,
+ 491.613525390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of tiers ice",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 249.696,
+ 89.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 365.1709289550781,
+ 89.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 365.1709289550781,
+ 102.9566650390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 249.696,
+ 102.9566650390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 257.652,
+ 529.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 371.89678955078125,
+ 529.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 371.89678955078125,
+ 544.6331481933594
+ ],
+ [
+ 257.652,
+ 544.6331481933594
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 247
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 383
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 461
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 430
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 428
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 360
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 446
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 54
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 414
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 471
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 438
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 427
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 407
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 401
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 441
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 390
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 444
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 403
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 408
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 484
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 292
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 248
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 201
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748684"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748708/EFTA02748708.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748708/EFTA02748708.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0540b98b0456cec9d721883425eecb7955080c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748708/EFTA02748708.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/.
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES 2-8'S NOTIFICATION OF 90 DAYS EXPIRING ON MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 474)
+
+Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, by and through undersigned counsel hereby files his Response to Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-8's Notification of 90 Days Expiring, and states as follows:
+
+1. On July 20, 2009, Plaintiff Jane Doe (#08-80893) filed Motions to Compel Responses to Request for Production (DE 210), Answers to Requests for Admission (DE 211), and Answers Interrogatories (DE 212). Many of the Requests in PlaintiffJane Doe's (08-80893) Motions to Compel address similar requests in Jane Does 2-8's Motion to Compel Responses and Requests for Net Worth Discovery (DE 333).
+
+2. On October 6, 2009, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, filed his Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Jane Doe's (08-80893) Motions to Compel (DE 340, 341, and 342).
+
+- 3. On November 2, 2009, Defendant Epstein, filed his Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-8's Motion to Compel (DE 390).
+- 4. On February 4, 2010, this Court entered an Omnibus Order on similar financial net worth discovery (DE 462).
+- 5. As such, what Defendant contends is the Omnibus Order entered on February 4, 2010 (DE 462) applies (in part or in whole) to Jane Does 2-8's Motion to Compel Net Worth Discovery, noting however, Defendant has appealed portions of the same Omnibus Order on February 26, 2010 (DE 477).
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar #224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that atrue copy of the foregoing was being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List via electronic mail (EMAIL) on this 3nd day of March, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit@bciclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mpike@bciclaw.com
+
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTITIER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel.\* Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+## Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey E ' Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRAr
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ssm@sexabuseattomev.com ahorowitz@sexabuseattomey.com Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 iagesq®bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+
+Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382
+
+Est Jaffe, Weissing, , Fistos & Lehrman, PL 425 N. Andrews Ave. Suite #2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 Brad@oathtoiustice.com Counsellor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax casseilo@taw.utah.edu Co-counsel for PlaintiVane Doe
+
+Escl• mg. Law Finn, P.A. 224 Datum Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F isidroscarcia@bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469
+
+rjosefsberg@podhurst.com kezell@podhurst.com
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748708/EFTA02748708.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748708/EFTA02748708.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c4a9ab4fecf3d39b954e33ee33ff963f7253cd2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748708/EFTA02748708.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,273 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748708.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 3853,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.96,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 84.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 414.7281494140625,
+ 84.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 414.7281494140625,
+ 113.50823974609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 113.50823974609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO \nPLAINTIFFS JANE DOES 2-8'S NOTIFICATION OF 90 DAYS EXPIRING \nON MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 474)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 110.16,
+ 373.40999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.7943725585938,
+ 373.40999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.7943725585938,
+ 417.2698059082031
+ ],
+ [
+ 110.16,
+ 417.2698059082031
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 459.2699999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 370.00408935546875,
+ 459.2699999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 370.00408935546875,
+ 473.03999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 473.03999999999996
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service \nJane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey E ' \nCase No. 08-CV-80119-MARRAr",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 192.78000000000003,
+ 210.60000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.0559999999999,
+ 210.60000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.0559999999999,
+ 252.71999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 192.78000000000003,
+ 252.71999999999997
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 208
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 224
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 296
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 70
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748708"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748712/EFTA02748712.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748712/EFTA02748712.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0a8da67d09ac06fa9652ecfcbc52805d39a1125e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748712/EFTA02748712.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+## Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER
+
+THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Third Party Witness, Motion for Protective Order (D.E. #475). Having reviewed the Motion filed by the non-party and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereby
+
+ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Third Party Witness, Motion for Protective Order (D.E. #475) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.. By this Motion the non-party referred to above seeks an order allowing her deposition to be rescheduled from March 1, 2010, to another date agreed upon by all interested parties due to a scheduling conflict of her attorney. 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. Barnett Bank of Poly County, 876 F.2d 89, 91 (11th Cir. 1989). Finding good cause present in this instance, the
+
+Court orders the subject deposition be re-scheduled for a date and time mutually agreeable
+
+to all concerned.
+
+**DONE AND ORDERED** this March 3, 2010, in [REDACTED], at West Palm
+
+Beach, Florida.
+
+LINNEA R. JOHNSON
+UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
+
+![]()CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra
+All Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748712/EFTA02748712.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748712/EFTA02748712.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ceb31441eee25cb07ad0aee78c2c25468b4d050c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748712/EFTA02748712.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748712.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1416,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 2.71,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 85.85999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 408.97198486328125,
+ 85.85999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 408.97198486328125,
+ 114.80352783203125
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 114.80352783203125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Related cases:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 69.156,
+ 311.85
+ ],
+ [
+ 159.70175170898438,
+ 311.85
+ ],
+ [
+ 159.70175170898438,
+ 326.30352783203125
+ ],
+ [
+ 69.156,
+ 326.30352783203125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 396.09000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.8534240722656,
+ 396.09000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.8534240722656,
+ 411.06353759765625
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 411.06353759765625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748712"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748714/EFTA02748714.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748714/EFTA02748714.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78c56737eca4237df94bbb9c544de2a35d686b22
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748714/EFTA02748714.md
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER
+
+THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Net Worth Discovery (D.E. #333). For the following reasons said Motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows.
+
+In this case, which has been consolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when the girls in question were approximately 16 years of age. As part of this scheme, Epstein, with the help of his assistant allegedly lured economically disadvantaged minor girls to his homes in Palm beach, New York and St. with the promise of money in exchange for a massage. Epstein purportedly transformed the massage into a sexual assault. The three-count Complaint alleges sexual assault and battery (Count I), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count II), and, coercion and enticement to sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 (Count III).
+
+In 2008, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney General's Office for the Federal Southern District of Florida and the State Attorney's Office for Palm Beach County. Under the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, any criminal prosecution against Epstein is deferred as long as he abides by the certain terms and conditions contained therein. If at any time the United States Attorney's Office has reason to believe Epstein is in breach of the Agreement, it need only provide Epstein's counsel with notice of the breach and then move forward with Epstein's prosecution. Accordingly, the mere fact the Government and Epstein have entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement does not mean that Epstein is free from future criminal prosecution.
+
+By the instant Motion Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Epstein to respond to various discovery requests (production and interrogatory) which seek information related to Epstein's net worth. Defendant has responded by asserting several objections, which to the extent necessary shall be discussed subsequently herein, the primary one of which is an assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege.
+
+The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial compulsion and provides, in relevant part, that lily:, person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." Id. In practice, the Fifth Amendment's privilege against selfincrimination "permits a person not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded "liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure," Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951), and extends not only to answers that would in themselves support a criminal conviction, but extends also to those answers which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a crime. Id.; Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950). Thus, information is protected by the privilege not only if it would support a criminal conviction, but also in those instances where "the responses would merely 'provide a lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate." United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980).
+
+The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination comes into play only in those instances where the witness has "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486 (citing Mason v. United States, 244 U.S. 362, 365 (1917)). "The claimant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980).
+
+When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the privilege must be asserted in response to a particular question, and in each instance the burden is on the claimant to justify invocation of the privilege. Id. Once a particularized showing has been made, "[i]t is for the court to decide whether a witness' silence is justified and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this determination the judge is instructed to view the facts and evidence presented on a caseby-case basis, and "must be governed as much by his perception of the peculiarities of the case, as by the facts actually in evidence." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 487.
+
+The law is well established that the Fifth Amendment privilege may not apply to specific documents "even though they contain incriminating assertions of fact or belief, because the creation of those documents was not 'compelled' within the meaning of the privilege." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). However, in certain instances, "'the act of production' itself may implicitly communicate 'statements of fact.'" Id. For this reason the Fifth Amendment privilege also encompasses the circumstance where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect Id. Thus, in those instances where the existence and/or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would "implicitly authenticate" the requested documents, the act of producing responsive documents is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976)(issue expressed as whether compliance with a document request or subpoena "tacitly conceded" the item's authenticity, existence or possession by the defendant).
+
+The Court begins with an analysis of the Fifth Amendment privilege as applied to each request or category of requests. In the event the Court determines that a certain request does not infringe upon Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege, Epstein's additional objections to that request shall be addressed. Where appropriate, the Court looks to those portions of Defendant's Response Memorandum submitted in camera. In this regard, the Court notes that in their Reply Memorandum (D.E. #426), Plaintiffs take issue with Defendant's failure to obtain court approval before submitting the subject material for in camera review. While the Court agrees the better practice would have been to obtain court approval before such filing, under the unique circumstances of this case, the undersigned does not find such lapse fatal to Defendant's position. For purposes of completeness, however, the undersigned hereby sua sponte allows the in camera submission provided by Defendant, which the undersigned has this day submitted for filing under seal in the Clerk's Office.
+
+The requests at issue are in the form of interrogatories and requests for production and essentially seek overlapping information, namely, all federal and state income tax returns and related documents filed with the government between 2003 and 2008 (Prod. Reqst. No. 1 and Interr. Reqst. Nos. 2 - 3); all documents relating to Defendant's assets, liabilities, income, expenses and net worth for the last five years (Prod. Reqst. No. 2 and Interr. Reqst. Nos 1-7, 10-12); all documentation relating to financing or loans requested or applied for by the Defendant including loan applications, appraisals, financial spreadsheets, etc. (Prod. Reqst. No. 3 and Interr. Reqst. Nos. 1-3, 7); all appraisals indicating fair market value of real estate and other property owned by Defendant (Prod. Reqst. No. 4 and Interr. Reqst. Nos. 8-9 ); and, all documents relating to any investment or savings accounts owned or controlled by Defendant such as account statements and summaries (Prod. Reqst. No. 5 and Interr. Reqst. Nos. 1-2, 10-12). As stated previously Defendant raised the same general objection to each of these requests, the primary objection being that to force him to respond would violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
+
+With the exception of Prod. Reqst. No. 1, which shall be discussed subsequently, the Court finds the subject requests objectionable in that they seek compelled statements/admissions that could reasonably furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein in future criminal proceedings related both to the issues in the instant case and/or to the issues that relate to a separate criminal action about which Defendant has a substantial and reasonable basis to be concemed about. In the latter regard the Court relies, in part, upon the submission provided by Defendant in camera with respect to the "target offenses" referenced therein.
+
+As noted previously, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination is accorded "liberal construction," Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486, and extends not only to answers that would in themselves support a criminal conviction, but extends also to those answers which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a crime. Id. Thus to be afforded protection, the answer need not necessarily be enough to support a criminal conviction; it is enough if the response merely provides a lead or clue to evidence having a tendency to incriminate. Neff, 615 F.2d at 1239.
+
+In asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege, Epstein expresses a concern that if forced to respond to the subject requests regarding his financial net worth, financial history and witnesses with knowledge of his actions, he may be deemed to have waived his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter in this case, the related cases and those matters outlined in Epstein's in camera submission. Given the allegations raised in the various Complaints and the elements required to convict Epstein of a crime, and considering the background facts underlying the instant case, and the issues outlined in Defendant's submission in camera, the Court finds these concerns are reasonable, real and not unjustified. It goes without saying that being forced to produce documents and/or produce lists identifying the existence of the detailed financial information sought and disclosing information regarding the identity and location of
+
+potential witnesses against Defendant is tantamount to forcing testimonial disclosures that would communicate statements of fact. See Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410 (noting that the Fifth Amendment covers situations where the act of producing documents has "communicative aspects of its own wholly aside from contents of the papers produced").
+
+Apart from Defendant's justified concerns regarding waiver, are the very real concerns that by forcing Defendant to respond to the subject discovery requests regarding his financial status and history, the Court risks providing the government with a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict Defendant of a crime. The potential for providing such a "link" is high when one considers that by forcing Defendant to respond, he will be implicitly communicating statements of fact, authenticating documents and testifying to their location, as well as providing clues as to the identity and location of witnesses that by such disclosure may serve to further a criminal investigation against him. Further, as the requests at issue would require disclosure in connection with Defendant's ownership of assets and transfers of assets inside and outside the United States, such disclosure could reveal the availability to him and/or use by him of interstate facilities, which again may implicate Defendant in additional crimes. In short, the requests at issue seek to have Defendant be a witness against himself, assist with Plaintiffs' investigation and identify areas that could result in future prosecution of Defendant, a result clearly prohibited by the Constitution. In this regard, Plaintiffs' claims that Defendant's constitutional rights are "not even remotely implicated" because the requests relate solely to Defendant's net worth and are "unrelated to Defendant's inducement of minors to sexual activity,"' ring hollow. See Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1263 (the "privilege" against self-incrimination does
+
+ x27; See Plaintiffs' Mtn. (D.E. #333), p.7.
+
+not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution and also covers those circumstances where the disclosures would not be directly incriminating, but could provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence).
+
+In accordance with the foregoing the Court finds that such forced disclosure with regard to the requests at issue presents a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination in this case, in other related cases, and relative to other potential realistically based federal claims. The Court finds further that the danger Defendant faces by being forced to testify in this instance is "substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary" as required. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 128. On this basis the Court finds the privilege raised as to all requests other than Prod. Reqst. No. 1, which shall be discussed shortly, validly asserted. Accordingly, Defendant's objection as it relates to each of the subject net worth discovery requests, other than Prod. Reqst. No. 1, is sustained and Defendant need not produce documents or serve answers to said discovery requests.
+
+The Court does not hold similarly with respect to Prod. Reqst. No. 1, which seeks "all federal and State income tax returns, including all W-2 forms, 1099 forms and schedules, for tax years 2003-2008," The law is well established that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to documents whose existence is known to the government or is a foregone conclusion. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44 (2000); United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313, 325 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Thus, while the Fifth Amendment covers situations where the act of producing documents has "communicative aspects of its own wholly aside from contents of the papers produced" Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410, the doctrine does not apply where the government has "prior knowledge of either the existence or the whereabouts of the...documents ultimately produced... ." Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 44.
+
+Prod. Reqst. No. 1 seeks production of documents the government is already in possession of, making the government's prior knowledge of the documents sought an obvious and undeniable "foregone conclusion." As such, Defendant can not reasonably and in good faith argue that in producing these documents to Plaintiff he will somehow be incriminating himself. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 383 F.3d 905,910 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting there can be no self-incrimination by production where the "existence and location of the documents ... are a 'foregone conclusion' and [the claimant] ... adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information by conceding that he in fact has the documents.").
+
+Defendant's alternative objection that tax returns enjoy a higher degree of protection than ordinary financial documents because tax returns are "confidential under federal law,"= does little to advance his cause. The Court has already addressed and rejected this argument finding that where, as here, the moving party has demonstrated a need for the tax returns at issue, the court's order requiring such disclosure voids the confidentiality concerns the law was designed to protect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in order to ameliorate Defendant's concerns in this regard the undersigned hereby orders that the tax returns and related documents filed with the government that are subject to production by virtue of the within Order may be disclosed only to the parties and to the attorneys of record in this case and to the agents of such parties and/or attorneys and may only be utilized for purposes of this litigation. In accordance with the above and foregoing, it is hereby,
+
+ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Net
+
+= See Defendant's Resp., p.13.
+
+Worth Discovery (D.E. #333) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER. For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds Defendant's Fifth Amendment objections validly asserted with respect to each of the subject requests other than Prod. Reqst. No. 1. As for Prod. Reqst. No. 1, Defendant is ordered to produce the documents responsive to this request within ten (10) days from the date hereof, or if said documents are not in Defendant's possession or immediate control, must produce a release with regard to same within five (5) days from the date hereof.
+
+DONE AND ORDERED in , in West Palm Beach Florida, this 4th day of March, 2010.
+
+LINNEA R. JO N N UNITED STAT MAGISTRATE JUDGE
+
+CC: The Hon. Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748714/EFTA02748714.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748714/EFTA02748714.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..332a46b5fc7a298aa5492f0d9d85f7c9a0ac6ce3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748714/EFTA02748714.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,423 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748714.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 10,
+ "chars": 17645,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.61,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 63.17999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.5008544921875,
+ 63.17999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.5008544921875,
+ 92.30352783203125
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 92.30352783203125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 388.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.8534240722656,
+ 388.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.8534240722656,
+ 403.56353759765625
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 403.56353759765625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 73
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 60
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748714"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748724/EFTA02748724.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748724/EFTA02748724.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fac434698e5134bae34aaefca8549bcd8436d59b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748724/EFTA02748724.md
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAJ
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+
+
+## JOINT AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR ORDER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
+
+This matter came before the Court on Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's Motion for Order for the Preservation of Evidence, & Incorporated Memorandum A(Pe 4° ) of Law ("Motion to Preserve Evidence"), dated November 12, 2009. The Court having reviewed the file including Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A.'s November 16, 2009 Response to Defendant's Emergency Motion for Order for the Preservation of Evidence, the Court enters this Order:
+
+Defendant Epstein's November 12, 2009 Motion to Preserve Evidence [DE # 4053 alleges that Plaintiff's counsel, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A. ("RRA") has been accused of serious unethical and possible criminal misconduct and requests an order requiring the preservation of certain documents identified in Composite Exhibit A to his Motion to Preserve Evidence. On November 13,
+
+Jane Doe No.2 v. Epstein
+
+Case No. 08-CIV4101189
+
+Order on Epstein's Emergency Motion for Order for the Preservation of Evidence
+
+Page 2 of 3
+
+2009, the Court entered its Order on Epstein's Motion to Preserve Evidence on a temporary basis expiring on November 17, 2009. [DE #408]. In a November 16, 2009 Response to Defendant's Emergency Motion for Order for the Preservation of Evidence, Mr. Stettin, in his capacity as RRA's Receiver and Chief Restructuring Officer,' represented that he "understands fully the gravity of document and evidence preservation" and that he Intends to continue to fully comply with his fiduciary duties both as Receiver and now as CRO of an alleged bankruptcy debtor." RRA's Response at 2; [DE # 409]. On November 18, 2009, the Court entered its Order renewing and continuing in effect its November 13, 2009 Order "until such time as [a] proposed order [on the Motion to Preserve Evidence] has been issued by the Court." [DE # 414].
+
+In the meantime, on November 10, 2009, RRA had been put into an involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. RRA's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case is still pending as In m: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A., Case No. 09-34791-RBR. On November 20, 2009, after having filed the Response in his capacity as the state court appointed Receiver, Mr. Stettin was appointed RRA's Chapter 11 Trustee. See, In re: Rothstein Rosenfeld( Adler, P.A., Case No. 09-34791-RBR, DE #35.
+
+The duties of a bankruptcy trustee are provided by statute, including that the trustee "be accountable for all property received." 11 U.S.C. § 1106(a); 11 U.S.C. § 704(a)(2). Therefore, a bankruptcy trustee is "charged with the duty of
+
+On November 4, 2009, Mr. Stettin was appointed as RRA's receiver by Judge Jeffrey Streitfeld of the Florida Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Case No. 09.059301. (DE if 409].
+
+Jane Doe No.2 v. Epstein
+
+Case No. 08-CIV-801189
+
+Order on Epstein's Emergency Motion for Order for the Preservation of Evidence
+
+Page 3 of 3
+
+collecting and reducing the property of the estate and is to be accountable for all such property." Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U.S. 274, 284,105 S.Ct. 705, 710 (1985). Since the federal bankruptcy code already requires a trustee to assemble and protect a bankrupt's property, therefore essentially covering the relief requested in the Motion to Preserve Evidence, there is no need for the Court to enter a further order as to Mr. Stettin.
+
+t34/kArek DONE and ORDERED this day of February, 2010.
+
+> Linnea R. Joh United States agistrate Judge
+
+Courtesy copies: All Counsel of Record
+
+Kendall Coffey, Esq. Coffey Burlington Office in the Grove, Penthouse 2699 South Bayshore Drive Miami, FL 33133
+
+James C. Cunningham, Jr. Berger Singerman, 2000 South Biscayne Blvd. Suite 1000 Miami, FL 33131
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748724/EFTA02748724.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748724/EFTA02748724.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f5213a68fbf4a4da3baeba0713ad119f5002e2e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748724/EFTA02748724.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748724.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 4058,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.96,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 207.25500000000002,
+ 88.28999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 404.7471923828125,
+ 88.28999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 404.7471923828125,
+ 117.43353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 207.25500000000002,
+ 117.43353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "JOINT AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION \nFOR ORDER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 135.915,
+ 363.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 476.3374328613281,
+ 363.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 476.3374328613281,
+ 393.0635681152344
+ ],
+ [
+ 135.915,
+ 393.0635681152344
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748724"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748724/_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748724/_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8a2f16239c3451a14925d6c68c881f0b84c73a71
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748724/_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:74bc70b8f965cd3e3dc99d8d3443e2e200f72c6abbedd3896025869ff86a3595
+size 11588
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/EFTA02748727.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/EFTA02748727.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9a89d336f8323f12c4e9b318497a24344a971b7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/EFTA02748727.md
@@ -0,0 +1,443 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+Vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+### PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
+
+Plaintiff, Jane Doe, respectfully files this motion for entry of an order directed to Jean Luc Brunel and his counsel ordering them to show cause why they should not be held in contempt, for sanctions, and for an order compelling Jean Luc Brunel to appear for a deposition within 20 days. After plaintiff Jane Doe served Brunel with a subpoena for a deposition in this case, his attorney, on his behalf, represented that Brunel would appear for a deposition if Jane Doe would postpone the scheduled deposition date. As an accommodation to him, Jane Doe did postpone the scheduled deposition date, but then Brunel has not appeared as agreed for a deposition. After much communication in an attempt to coordinate Brunel's deposition, Brunel's counsel represented that Brunel was outside of the country, and thus unavailable, when in fact he was inside the country
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA'
+
+and easily available for a deposition. Because of these false representations, this Court should direct Brunel and his counsel to show cause why they should not be held in contempt. This Court should also compel Brunel to appear for the deposition that was previously scheduled and that he has avoided only through these false representations. Finally, the Court should sanction the appropriate person(s) for causing the undersigned to spend unnecessary time filing this motion.
+
+## BACKGROUND
+
+Jane Doe personally served Jean Luc Brunel in New York City to appear for deposition in this case. The subpoena indicated a deposition date of September 22, 2009 at 10:00 A.M. in New York City, New York. Brunel is an important witness in this case, as he is a good friend of Epstein's and has information regarding Epstein's pattern and practice of obtaining young girls for sexual purposes, relevant issues not yet admitted by Defendant Epstein.
+
+Shortly after Brunel was served, counsel for Jane Doe was contacted by Tama Beth Kudman, Esq., a licensed attorney in Florida. Kudman stated that she represented Brunel with regard to the subpoena and that she would produce Brunel for deposition in West Palm Beach if Jane Doe would agree not to go forward with the deposition date in New York. Counsel for Jane Doe honored that request, and with Kudman jointly arranged a deposition date for Brunel in West Palm Beach for October.
+
+Shortly before his deposition was to take place, Ms. Kudman contacted counsel for Jane Doe to move that deposition date because of a personal conflict. Once again, counsel for Jane Doe agreed. After several conversations regarding the deposition of
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+Brunel, Kudman asked that counsel for Jane Doe set Brunel for deposition in January of 2010, as that was a time when she could assure his availability.
+
+In January, counsel for Jane Doe again contacted Ms. Kudman to arrange a mutually convenient deposition time. Ms. Kudman stated that Brunel would be in Florida the first week of February and she would work to coordinate his deposition for that time.
+
+The undersigned's office contacted Ms. Kudman's office on several occasions in January to coordinate a February deposition date of Brunel. On January 29, 2010, Ms. Kudman returned the call and left a voicemail apologizing for not returning the call sooner and indicating that she had only been waiting to hear from Mr. Brunel as to his availability, and she invited the undersigned to contact her the following week to set it up. On February 5, 2010, counsel for Jane Doe contacted Ms. Kudman to coordinate Brunel's deposition. During that telephone conversation, Ms. Kudman represented that her client, Mr. Brunel, had previously left the country to go to his home country of France before the New Year. Ms. Kudman further represented that while she believed he was going to return, it turned out that he had no plans to return. Ms. Kudman also stated that if Brunel was in the country, she would make good on her representation that she would produce him. However, she had just spoken to him via a telephone call from him in France. Brunel told Kudman that he was staying there indefinitely with no plans to return. In subsequent telephone conversations, Ms. Kudman continued to represent that Mr. Brunel had been out of the country since sometime prior to the New Year and was not planning to return.
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAi
+
+Counsel for Jane Doe responded that this representation seemed quite strange, since Brunel has a significant business in the United States. Kudman replied that it was simply too expensive for him to return and that because of the expense he had no intentions of returning. Counsel for Jane Doe then pointed out that when Brunel was served, Kudman had promised he would be produced for deposition. Kudman replied that because he is in France with no plans to return there was simply nothing she could do. Kudman further advised counsel for Jane Doe that if he wanted to take Brunel's deposition in France, then it would be necessary to obtain a Letters Rogatory and go through the Consulate. After these procedures, Kudman then indicated it would be necessary to take a trip to France for his deposition. Counsel for Jane Doe indicated that he might be willing to go through that process, but that he would like for Kudman to tell him if Brunel happened to return to the United States. Kudman promised that she would.
+
+Remarkably, after all of these representations had been made by Kudman, it turns out that Brunel was actually in the United States during the time when Jane Doe was trying to take his depositon. In fact, on February 16, 2010, counsel for Jane Doe took the deposition of Jeffrey Epstein's house manager, Janusz Banaziak. Mr. Banaziak was asked if he knew Mr. Brunel. In summary, he responded that he knew him as Mr. Epstein's friend. He elaborated that Mr. Brunel had stayed with Epstein at Epstein's Palm Beach home on at least two occasions in 2010. The first 2010 visit was in January, when Mr. Brunel stayed for approximately 3 days. Then Mr. Brunel stayed at Mr. Epstein's home from approximately February 10th or 11th through February 14th,
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAi
+
+2010. It was known by Epstein that Brunel was coming to stay at the house in February 2010, as he was picked up at the airport and driven to Epstein's home by Epstein's bodyguard, Igor Zinoview, and after his stay with Epstein, Brunel was driven from Epstein's house to the airport by . See deposition of Janusz Banaziak at page 154-161 and 168-16 attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
+
+## MEMORANDUM OF LAW
+
+As is readily apparent from the foregoing facts, Ms. Kudman has either made false representations about Mr. Brunet's whereabouts or Mr. Brunel has made false representations about his whereabouts that she passed on. In either case, they should be required to show cause why her and/or she should not be held in contempt of court for making false representations. See, e.g., Acton v. Target Corp., 2009 WL 5214419 at \*5 (W.D. Wash. 2009) (entering order to show cause why counsel should not be held in contempt for making false representations). In particular, Mr. Brunel and Ms. Kudman should explain how it came to pass that Mr. Brunel was in Florida at the very time that Jane Doe was attempting to take his deposition while Ms. Kudman was confidently reporting that he was unavailable in France. Given the known facts, Ms. Kudman was either an unwitting messenger who passed along false representations delivered to her by her client Mr. Brunel, or she was a knowing participant in Brunel and/or Epstein's attempt to obstruct discovery; either way a show cause order should be entered and the appropriate person(s) sanctioned and held in contempt.
+
+Mr. Brunel and Ms. Kudman should also be required to provide a full explanation of who precisely is paying the attorney fees for Ms. Kudman's services. Most, if not all,
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+of the witnesses that have been deposed in this and related cases against Epstein have appeared with counsel retained and paid for by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. In this instance, we know that Mr. Epstein was together with his house guest, Mr. Brunel, at a time when Brunel's counsel was representing that Brunel was out of the country and could thus not attend a deposition. Mr. Epstein also knew at that time that the undersigned had been trying to coordinate Brunel's deposition for months. Therefore, there is no doubt that Mr. Epstein was assisting Mr. Brunel and/or Ms. Kudman in obstructing discovery. At the very least, Mr. Epstein was an accomplice, but was he the person paying the attorney to make false representations and tamper with important witnesses? While Mr. Epstein may be able to invoke his 5th amendment rights on such questions, Mr. Brunel and Ms. Kudman do not have that luxury, and at this point they should be required to provide these answers.
+
+Again, as the facts make clear, Ms. Kudman has not delivered on promises made (as an officer of the court) to counsel for Jane Doe, and Mr. Brunel has not appeared for a deposition. As such, Jane Doe moves this Court to enter an order directing Mr. Brunel to promptly appear for a deposition in West Palm Beach within 14 days. He was properly served with a subpoena by Jane Doe, and only through deceitful maneuvers he has been able to avoid his deposition. This Court should not permit subpoenas to be avoided in this fashion.
+
+WHEREFORE, Jane Doe respectfully requests the Court to direct Mr. Brunel and Ms. Kudman to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for making false representations in an effort to avoid a deposition. If the Court finds that they are in
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA'
+
+contempt, the Court should also impose appropriate sanctions, including attorney's fees for Jane Doe in connection with filing this motion. The Court should also compel Mr. Brunel to appear for a deposition within 14 days of the Court's order and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.
+
+# PRE-FILING CONFERENCE
+
+Counsel for Jane Doe has attempted to confer with Ms. Kudman about this motion, but she declined to make Brunel available for deposition, and in fact has again stated as recently as March 5, 2010 that Brunel has been out of the country since prior to the New Year with no plans to return.
+
+DATED: March 10, 2010
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+AFFE, WEISSING, , FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+and
+
+Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA'
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 10, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+> s/ J.
+
+## SERVICE LIST
+
+Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Jaoldberger@aawoa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bciclaw.com
+
+Isidro Manual isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack joh@searcylaw.com •
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike MPike@bciclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawyerswillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+rjosefsbera@oodhurst.com
+
+Adam D. Horowitz ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein ssm@sexabuseattorney.com
+
+# EXHIBIT A
+
+1 A. No.
+
+2 MR. GOLDBERGER: Form.
+
+3 BY MR.
+
+4 Q. And have you known, just based on your 5 observations, Nadia to have girlfriends? And by 6 girlfriends I mean girlfriends that she would be 7 intimate with in addition to being the girlfriend of 8 Jeffrey Epstein?
+
+9 A. No.
+
+10 Q. Do you know somebody by the name of Jean 11 Luc Brunel?
+
+12 A. Yes.
+
+13 Q. How do you know him?
+
+14 A. He was in the house like, I guess, a few 15 times.
+
+16 Q. When?
+
+17 A. When?
+
+18 Q. When was the last time you saw him there?
+
+19 A. A week ago.
+
+20 Q. Today is, what, February 16th, and this is 21 a Tuesday. So, when we are saying a week ago, are 22 you saying it was last Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, 23 Friday, do you remember?
+
+24 A. I don't remember the date but he stay maybe 25 three days, I think, in the house.
+
+1 Q. So, if he arrived on Tuesday, he stayed 2 through Thursday or Friday and
+
+3 A. Yes.
+
+4 Q. Do you know what the occasion was for him 5 to come in town?
+
+6 A. No.
+
+7 Q. Where did he stay in the house last week?
+
+8 A. One of the bedrooms upstairs.
+
+9 Q. And was Mr. Epstein also staying in the 10 house?
+
+11 A. Yes.
+
+12 Q. All right. Did Mr. Brunel bring any 13 company with him?
+
+14 A. No.
+
+15 Q. It was him alone?
+
+16 A. Yes.
+
+17 Q. How did he get to the house?
+
+18 A. I think he has been picked up by Igor at this 19 point.
+
+20 Q. And where did he -- I assume he flew in 21 from somewhere?
+
+22 A. Yes.
+
+23 Q. Picked up from the airport, safe 24 assumption? He didn't just drive to the airport.
+
+25 (A discussion was held off the record.)
+
+
+
+1 BY MR.
+
+2 Q. So, do you know where it was that
+
+3 Mr. Brunel flew in from?
+
+4 A. No.
+
+5 Q. Do you know where Mr. Brunel generally
+
+6 lives? I mean is it New York, is it
+
+7 A. I know that he spends some time in Florida, in 8 Miami, but exactly where he is, I don't know.
+
+9 Q. But obviously he wouldn't fly here to Palm 10 Beach from Miami, right, so he had to be coming from 11 somewhere else you would assume?
+
+12 A. Yes, I assume.
+
+13 Q. Were you told -- similar to the way that 14 you have been describing throughout the deposition, 15 you're told who is coming in town. Were you told he 16 was going to be at the house?
+
+17 A. Yeah. Usually he requires to be picked up, so 18 I know that he is coming.
+
+19 Q. Okay. We'll go through some other 20 instances where you had occasion to pick him up or 21 break plans, but talking specifically about last
+
+22 week: When were you first told that Mr. Brunel was 23 going to be coming into town?
+
+24 A. I think Igor told me that he has to go and 25 pick him up.
+
+1 Q. How did he --
+
+2 A. It was my day off, I guess, because usually I 3 am the one who pick up people. So, I guess it was my 4 days off and Igor was working, so he went to pick him 5 up.
+
+6 Q. Okay. It wouldn't be Story Cowles picking 7 him up?
+
+8 A. No.
+
+9 Q. So, to the best of your recollection Igo.: 10 picked up Jean Luc Brunel sometime last week from 11 the airport and took him to the house?
+
+12 A. Right.
+
+13 Q. Do you know what car he took to pick him 14 up?
+
+15 A. I think Cadillac Escalade.
+
+16 Q. The black Escalade?
+
+17 A. Yes.
+
+18 Q. And what did Mr. Brunel and Mr. Epstein do 19 for the three day stay when Mr. Brunel was staying 20 at Mr. Epstein's house last week?
+
+21 MR. GOLDBERGER: Form.
+
+22 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
+
+23 BY MR.
+
+24 Q. Did you interact, communicate with
+
+25 Mr. Brunel?
+
+1 A. Yes.
+
+2 Q. And what did he say as to why he was here?
+
+3 MR. GOLDBERGER: Form.
+
+4 THE WITNESS: Good morning. How are you?
+
+5 Exchange handshake. And I saw him in the 6 kitchen and he was cooking something and that's 7 it.
+
+8 BY MR.
+
+9 Q. When you say he was cooking something, he 10 was personally cooking?
+
+11 A. Yes.
+
+12 Q. All right. So, this is a house that he is 13 familiar enough with and he is a regular enough 14 guest that he makes himself at home?
+
+15 A. Yes.
+
+16 Q. Okay. And last week do you remember 17 anything in the three-day period that Mr. Brunel was 18 staying at the house that Mr. Brunel did from the 19 time he woke up to the time that he went to sleep?
+
+20 MR. GOLDBERGER: Form.
+
+21 BY MR.
+
+22 Q. I mean did go to the movies? Did he go to 23 the beach? Did they just hang out around the house 24 and walk?
+
+25 A. Yeah. I think he walked outside to the beach.
+
+1 He was swimming in the pool, talking on the phone just 2 what I remember.
+
+3 Q. Okay. During the three-day stay last 4 week, how often were -- I mean, I assuming that he 5 came in town to see Mr. Epstein; is that true?
+
+6 A. Yes.
+
+7 Q. And so the majority of his time during 8 that three days was spent hanging around with 9 Mr. Epstein?
+
+10 A. Yes.
+
+11 Q. All right. Did you see them talking with 12 one another?
+
+13 A. Yes.
+
+14 Q. Where were they talking with one another?
+
+15 A. In the cabana, outside sitting next to the 16 pool.
+
+17 Q. All right. And when you said that 18 Mr. Brunel walked to the beach, did Mr. Epstein walk 19 to the beach with him?
+
+20 A. No.
+
+21 Q. Mr. Brunel walked alone?
+
+22 A. Yes.
+
+23 Q. Who else was in the house last week while 24 Mr. Brunel was in the house?
+
+25 A. Nadia, Sarah, and Story, I think.
+
+
+
+1 Q. ?
+
+2 A. Yes.
+
+3 Q. And Story Cowles?
+
+4 A. Yes.
+
+5 Q. Okay. Who else, Igor?
+
+6 A. Igor. I guess that's it.
+
+7 8 9 Q. Did you overhear any of the substance of the conversations that Mr. Brunel was having with Mr. Epstein?
+
+10 A. No.
+
+11 12 13 Q. All right. What is your understanding as to the relationship between Mr. Brunel and Mr. Epstein?
+
+14 A. I guess they are friends.
+
+15 16 17 Q. Okay. In addition to being friends well, let me ask this question first: Do you know when they became friends?
+
+18 A. No.
+
+19 20 Q. You don't know how long they have known each other?
+
+21 A. No.
+
+22 Q. You don't know who introduced them?
+
+23 A. No.
+
+24 25 Q. They could have met since they were five years old or they could have met five years ago for 1 all you know?
+
+2 A. Yes.
+
+3 Q. In addition to being friends, do you know 4 them to be -- have a business relationship with one 5 another?
+
+6 A. I don't know.
+
+7 Q. Do you know what Mr. Brunel does for a 8 living?
+
+9 A. I think he has some modeling agency, owner of 10 some modeling agency. I don't know exactly where, which 11 one.
+
+12 Q. Why do you think that? Why do you think 13 he is involved with a modeling agency?
+
+14 A. I think somebody told me.
+
+15 Q. Okay. That's fair enough. Who?
+
+16 A. I don't remember who.
+
+17 Q. Would it be Sarah or Mr. Epstein?
+
+18 A. It could be.
+
+19 Q. And whether it was Sarah or -- whoever 20 told you about this was one of the people that you 21 have previously described as being within the 22 Jeffrey Epstein organization?
+
+23 A. Yes.
+
+24 Q. And as you sit here today, you can't say 25 definitely it was one person within the organization
+
+
+
+1 A. No. She was a guest, I assume.
+
+2 Q. Any reason why there would be an overlap 3 between her staying at the house and Jean Luc 4 staying at the house, or it was just coincidence as 5 far as you could tell?
+
+6 A. I don't know.
+
+7 Q. 8 written Okay. And is there anywhere where you've down or documented what Sue's last name is?
+
+9 A. No.
+
+10 Q. Did you take her back to the airport?
+
+11 A. Yes.
+
+12 Q. 13 airport? And what day did you take her to the
+
+14 A. Yesterday.
+
+15 Q. Yesterday. So, she was here four days.
+
+16 She got here last Thursday or Friday?
+
+17 A. I think Friday.
+
+18 Q. And she was at the house for a period of 19 time when Jean Luc Brunel was at the house?
+
+20 A. Yeah. I mean, last week, yes.
+
+21 Q. Okay. So, she got there Friday. When did 22 Jean Luc Brunel finally leave Mr. Epstein's house?
+
+23 A. I think Monday, yeah, Monday. He left Monday.
+
+24 Q. That's yesterday?
+
+25 A. Or Sunday.
+
+
+
+1 Q. Today is Tuesday.
+
+2 A. Today is Tuesday. Yes, I think Sunday.
+
+3 4 Q. Okay. So, on Sunday Jean Luc Brunel left and on Monday Sue left?
+
+5 A. Yes.
+
+6 7 Q. All right. Did you take Jean Luc Brunel to the airport?
+
+8 A. No.
+
+9 Q. All right. Did Igor?
+
+10 A. Sarah.
+
+11 12 4. . And do you know where he was flying to?
+
+13 A. No.
+
+14 15 Q. You don't know where he came from or where he was flying to?
+
+16 A. Right.
+
+17 18 19 20 21 Q. Right. And as of right now you have no knowledge as to where he primarily resides, whether that -- I know you said that he spends some time in Miami, but whether he primarily resides in Miami or New York or Antartica, you have no idea?
+
+22 A. No.
+
+23 24 25 Q. Okay. Other than last week, when was the last time that you saw this gentleman Jean Luc Brunel at Jeffrey Epstein's house?
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/EFTA02748727.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/EFTA02748727.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..27ab7b9318fe1a6ab15929b41bcad4705218105a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/EFTA02748727.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,934 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 20,
+ "chars": 20864,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 3.2,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_11_Picture_24.jpeg",
+ "_page_15_Picture_21.jpeg",
+ "_page_17_Picture_21.jpeg",
+ "_page_18_Picture_24.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 71.0675048828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.520751953125,
+ 71.0675048828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.520751953125,
+ 99.54998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 99.54998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR \nAN ORDER TO COMPEL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 78.94800000000001,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.4967041015625,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.4967041015625,
+ 416.79998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 78.94800000000001,
+ 416.79998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "BACKGROUND",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 260.1,
+ 275.40000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 353.64556884765625,
+ 275.40000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 353.64556884765625,
+ 290.41998291015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 260.1,
+ 290.41998291015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "MEMORANDUM OF LAW",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 233.17200000000003,
+ 247.86
+ ],
+ [
+ 379.7854309082031,
+ 247.86
+ ],
+ [
+ 379.7854309082031,
+ 262.67999267578125
+ ],
+ [
+ 233.17200000000003,
+ 262.67999267578125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PRE-FILING CONFERENCE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 225.82799999999997,
+ 219.51
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.3675231933594,
+ 219.51
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.3675231933594,
+ 235.29998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 225.82799999999997,
+ 235.29998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 225.82799999999997,
+ 123.93
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.0013122558594,
+ 123.93
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.0013122558594,
+ 138.91998291015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 225.82799999999997,
+ 138.91998291015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 263.15999999999997,
+ 303.5675048828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.57220458984375,
+ 303.5675048828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.57220458984375,
+ 318.17999267578125
+ ],
+ [
+ 263.15999999999997,
+ 318.17999267578125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "EXHIBIT A",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 173.808,
+ 328.4207458496094
+ ],
+ [
+ 451.0292053222656,
+ 328.4207458496094
+ ],
+ [
+ 451.0292053222656,
+ 391.1376037597656
+ ],
+ [
+ 173.808,
+ 391.1376037597656
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 72
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 72
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 72
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 121
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 85
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 43
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 121
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748727"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/_page_11_Picture_24.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/_page_11_Picture_24.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cff545e1fde01cc44f9b57df4057dddfabe7a98c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/_page_11_Picture_24.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:1b28e4c2699422a57ce423cce3dd7cf8732b159a37b96e106e099520b6722a4c
+size 5022
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/_page_15_Picture_21.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/_page_15_Picture_21.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c9a6af655a4fd7aae8990ec13182d9e2a8fd3e1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/_page_15_Picture_21.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:77981bfbdf6069d2bc6c7994fee34ff980fcf1e85e2d80a17b3925eac5af6405
+size 5152
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/_page_17_Picture_21.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/_page_17_Picture_21.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2e744c02d66570530d822be413ab4023b642881
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/_page_17_Picture_21.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:ee63087101d678268192864618c697e35a425321682a211a160481b715af0d2c
+size 5138
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/_page_18_Picture_24.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/_page_18_Picture_24.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..26f211baf5663bfb4a05e2c5972c99bfcf4a8fc8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748727/_page_18_Picture_24.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:1ae95b2cc984f549642612c962f283e9737d83d1a7dd702f1466ec2cfc2226a8
+size 5022
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748747/EFTA02748747.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748747/EFTA02748747.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c139c89fd9fb00e581dca683e5a6e3a653d6b6f7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748747/EFTA02748747.md
@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+Vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION TO RESPOND TO EPSTEIN'S 24-PAGE APPEAL PLEADING WITH A 25-PAGE RESPONSE
+
+Plaintiff, Jane Doe, moves to respond to a 24-page appeal pleading filed by Jeffrey Epstein with a 25-page response. Given the number of arguments raised by Epstein in his 24 pages, Jane Doe requires 25 pages to respond to make sure that all his arguments are answered.
+
+The undersigned does not believe the defendant Epstein will have objection to this motion.
+
+Therefore, Jane Doe respectfully request that this Court grant her motion and allow her to file a 25-page response.
+
+DATED: March 10, 2010
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/[REDACTED]
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+s/ J. [REDACTED]
+J. [REDACTED]
+[REDACTED], JAFFE, WEISSING,
+[REDACTED], FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+Telephone (954) 524-2820
+Facsimile (954) 524-2822
+Florida Bar No.: 542075
+E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+*and*
+
+Paul G. Cassell
+Pro Hac Vice
+332 S. 1400 E.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+Telephone: 801-585-5202
+Facsimile: 801-585-6833
+E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 10, 2010 I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+s/ J. [REDACTED]
+J. [REDACTED]
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA'
+
+## SERVICE LIST
+
+Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Jaoldbercier@aawoa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bciclaw.com
+
+Isidro Manual isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack iph@searcylaw.com •
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike MPike@bciclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell casselloPlaw.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawyerswillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg nosefsberg@podhurst.com
+
+Adam D. Horowitz ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein ssm@sexabuseattorney.com
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748747/EFTA02748747.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748747/EFTA02748747.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3f3d979ebcea85b44f992d24ba38ca885031041b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748747/EFTA02748747.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,223 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748747.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 2568,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 4.7,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 71.0675048828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.520751953125,
+ 71.0675048828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.520751953125,
+ 99.54998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 99.54998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION TO RESPOND TO EPSTEIN'S 24-PAGE \nAPPEAL PLEADING WITH A 25-PAGE RESPONSE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 96.696,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 515.640380859375,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 515.640380859375,
+ 416.79998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 96.696,
+ 416.79998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 224.60399999999998,
+ 509.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 384.336,
+ 509.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 384.336,
+ 524.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 224.60399999999998,
+ 524.88
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 109.35000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.57220458984375,
+ 109.35000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.57220458984375,
+ 125.04998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 125.04998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748747"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748750/EFTA02748750.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748750/EFTA02748750.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a1a1806d5df5526ced0b0a55ec8d506d172134d7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748750/EFTA02748750.md
@@ -0,0 +1,257 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+Vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+#### PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL
+
+Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby files this response to defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of Magistrate's Order (dkt. #477). The motion should be denied in its entirety. As the magistrate judge correctly found, defendant Epstein has no valid Fifth Amendment objection to refusing to turn over materials and information already in the Government's possession. Moreover, the other objections that he raises were never presented to the magistrate judge and, in any event, are without merit.
+
+## PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
+
+On July 20, 2009, Jane Doe filed a straightforward motion for production of various materials, including documents provided to Epstein as part of discovery from state and federal prosecutors in the criminal cases against him, his recent tax returns, and his passport (dkt. #210). Epstein obtained an extension of time in which to respond
+
+and, two-and-a-half months later, on October 6, 2009, Epstein filed an objection to producing these items primarily on Fifth Amendment grounds (dkt. #339). On October 16, 2009, Jane Doe filed a reply in support of her motion (dkt. #354). On January 22, 2010, Jane Doe filed a notice that more than 90 days had elapsed since the filing of her motion (dkt. #453).
+
+On February 4, 2010, the magistrate judge granted in part Jane Doe's motion to compel, specifically ruling that Epstein had to produce the discovery provided to him by state and federal prosecutors, his recent tax returns, and his passport (dkt. #462). The magistrate judge explained that the requests "seek production of documents the government itself gave to Epstein, making the government's prior knowledge of the documents sought an obvious and undeniable 'foregone conclusion.' As such, Epstein cannot reasonably and in good faith argue that in producing these documents to Plaintiff he will somehow be incriminating himself." Id. at 8.
+
+Epstein then obtained extension of time in which to file an appeal, ultimately filing an appeal of the magistrate decision on February 26, 2010 - some seven months after Jane Doe's initial request had been made (dkt. #477).
+
+# EPSTEIN POSSESSES MATERIALS RESPONSIVE TO JANE DOE'S REQUESTS
+
+At the outset, it is worth briefly addressing what appears to be an effort by Epstein to obfuscate the fact that he possesses documents and other materials relevant to the discovery requests for production. Jane Doe made request for materials relating to the criminal charges against Epstein, his recent tax returns, and his passports. The three discovery requests regarding Epstein's criminal charges are:
+
+Request No. 7: All discovery information obtained by you or your attorneys as a result of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you or the Federal investigation against you.
+
+Request No. 9: Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided to local, state, or federal law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal prosecutors investigating your sexual activities with minors.
+
+Request No. 10: All correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, letters to and from the States Attorney's office or any agents thereof).
+
+In his appeal pleading to this Court, Epstein has now made the following representations:
+
+As to Request No. 7, Epstein and his attorneys do not have any 'discovery information' provided to them by the federal government.
+
+As to Request No. 9, Epstein has not been given any evidentiary materials or evidentiary documents by the federal government.
+
+Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal, dkt. #477, at 4 (hereinafter "Epstein's Appeal"). Jane Doe does not take these representations to mean that Epstein possesses no information responsive to these requests. If this were the case, Epstein could have avoided seven months of litigation by simply explaining that to the Court (and Jane Doe) at the outset. Rather, Epstein seems to be playing semantic games. With regard to discovery request no. 7, Epstein represents only that he has no discovery information from the federal government — not contesting the obvious fact (as Jane Doe has been reliably informed) that he received significant discovery in connection with the state criminal charges to which he pled guilty. With regard to discovery request no. 9, Epstein represents only that he has not been given evidentiary documents by the federal government — again not contesting the obvious fact (as Jane Doe has been reliably informed) that he received documents and
+
+other materials, including correspondence, from both the state and federal authorities working on his case. If Epstein is going to continue to mince words in this fashion, Jane Doe asks that he clearly explain to the Court in any reply pleading what materials responsive to the requests for production he possesses so that the Court may make an informed ruling.'
+
+### ARGUMENT
+
+#### I. THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE PROPERLY ORDERED EPSTEIN TO PRODUCE DISCOVERY AND OTHER MATERIALS FROM THE CRIMINAL CASE.
+
+The magistrate judge ordered Epstein to produce materials responsive to requests no. 7, no. 9, and no. 10 — all materials relating to the criminal cases against Epstein. This order should be affirmed.
+
+### A. The "Purpose" of the Federal Rules of Evidence Regarding Settlement Discussions Does Not Provide any Basis for Resisting Discovery
+
+The main argument that Epstein makes before the Court now against this request for production is that it would supposedly violate the purpose underlying the Rules of Evidence that limit the use at trial of certain evidence regarding settlement discussions. This argument should be rejected for numerous reasons.
+
+First, it is important to understand that argument is being raised against the backdrop of a sustained (and thus far successful) effort by Epstein to prevent Jane Doe from obtaining any documentary discovery from him regarding this case. As the Court is well aware from the pleadings in this and related cases, through a battery of attorneys
+
+It is also important to note that Jane Doe's discovery requests date back to last July. Jane Doe assumes that Epstein has not destroyed or otherwise dispossessed himself of any materials responsive to the requests since that time. Jane Doe also assumes that Epstein will give the discovery requests their reasonable and ordinary understanding, rather than some strained interpretation.
+
+Epstein has raised numerous objections to providing discovery to Jane Doe and other plaintiffs. Epstein has also "taken the Fifth" with regard to all substantive questions propounded to him about his sexual abuse of young girls. Jane Doe's efforts to obtain the materials involved in this motion are hardly gilding the lily — if she receives them, they would be the first substantive materials that she has obtained from Epstein in this case.
+
+Second, Epstein's argument about the confidentiality of settlement discussions only pertains to Jane Doe's discovery Request No. 10, which seeks correspondence with the Government.2 It has no application to her discovery Requests Nos. 7 and 8 regarding documents and other materials provided by state and federal prosecutors during the criminal cases against Epstein. Accordingly, those two requests should be summarily granted.
+
+Third, Epstein's argument before this Court regarding settlement discussion confidentiality is an entirely new argument from the one that he presented to the magistrate judge. Before the magistrate judge, Epstein's argument was that producing the correspondence with the Government would violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against Self-Incrimination. See Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's, Jane Doe's, Motion to Compel Response to Plaintiff's Request for Production (dkt. # 339), at 6-8 (hereinafter cited as "Epstein's Response in Opposition") (raising Fifth Amendment "act of production" argument). It was only at the tail-end of his memorandum that Epstein even mentioned issues regarding the settlement
+
+2 The request covers correspondence with "state or federal law enforcement or prosecutors." For convenience, the request will be described as being for correspondence with "the Government."
+
+discussions. His argument tersely asserted that "a reading of the particular discovery requests reveals that they encompass attorney-client and work-product privileged material." Epstein's Response in Opposition at 8. Id. The argument then concluded with the claim that the federal rules of evidence "prevent the production of such material." Id. at 9.
+
+The magistrate judge had no difficulty in dispatching not only the Fifth Amendment claims (discussed below) but also the arguments that Epstein presented regarding the alleged attorney-client and work-product privilege. The magistrate judge rejected "out of hand" any claim by Epstein regarding attorney-client privilege because issues discussed with the Government could hardly be viewed as "'confidential communications' between a lawyer and his client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice." Omnibus Order, dkt. #462, at 9. And with regard to the Federal Rules of Evidence relating to settlement discussions, the magistrate judge noted that the rules apply only to the trial — not the earlier discovery phase of a civil case. Id. at 10.
+
+Rather than contest these uncontrovertable propositions before this Court, Epstein advances a new set of attacks on producing the correspondence. He now contends that production would "contravene the critical public policy" that allows plea bargaining of criminal charges. Epstein's Appeal at 4. He then dives into what he alleges is the "purpose of the rules" and claims that this purpose will be violated if he is required to produce his correspondence with the Government. Id. at 5. In support of his argument, he cites a series of cases that discuss confidentiality generally (but not discovery issues).
+
+Epstein never presented this argument to the magistrate judge. Nor did Epstein cite any of the supporting cases that he now cites to this Court to the magistrate judge. Accordingly, this Court should not consider this new argument being presented to it for the first time. As the Eleventh Circuit has explained, "Systemic efficiencies would be frustrated and the magistrate judge's role reduced to that of a mere dress rehearser if a party were allowed to feint and weave at the initial hearing, and save its knockout punch for the second round." v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009).
+
+Four, in any event, far from being a knockout punch, Epstein's argument is meritless. As is readily apparent, Epstein is making an argument based on what he alleges to be good "public policy." Epstein's Appeal at 4. But in approving the Rules of Civil Procedure, Congress has already made a different determination about the appropriate policy to follow during discovery. The Rules of Civil Procedure permit discovery, of course, "regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant" to Jane Doe's claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added). The Rules of Evidence regarding settlement discussions (rules 410 and 408) do not create any privileges. It is possible that Epstein may ultimately argue that these rules exclude certain evidence at trial. If he makes these arguments, Jane Doe will respond in due course.3 But under the discovery rules "[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery
+
+3 Both rules contains exemptions, allowing such evidence to be used to prove such things as "state of mind," "bias and prejudice," or other things apart from mere liability for the matter under discussion. See, e.g., United States v. Peed, 714 F.2d 7, 9-10 (4th Cir. 1983) (admitting defendant's offer to return missing property because it appeared motivated by purpose of persuading victim to drop criminal charges rather than to compromise civil claim). The Florida rule that Epstein cites, even though not applicable in this federal case, are also subject to similar exemptions. Once Jane Doe has an opportunity to review the materials that Epstein provides, she believes that she will be able to provide multiple permissible grounds for believing that the correspondence falls comfortably within the exemptions.
+
+appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Thus, discovery is "construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). The correspondence with the government agencies may well point Jane Doe in the direction of admissible evidence, and therefore Epstein should be compelled to provide the correspondence sought in request number 10.
+
+Fifth, even if Rule 410 and 408 could be viewed restricting discovery in civil cases, they are entirely inapplicable to this particular case. Rule 410 is the specific rule covering plea bargaining in criminal cases. It makes inadmissible against a defendant "any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty . . . ." Fed. R. Evid. 410(4) (emphasis added). Of course, in this case the discussions that Epstein had with prosecutors did "result in a plea of guilty" -- therefore Rule 410 is by its own terms completely irrelevant to correspondence by Epstein involving a ultimate guilty plea.
+
+Rule 408 does not cover criminal plea bargaining, but is a general rule that covers settlement discussions in civil cases. See B. MUELLER & LAIRD C. KIRKPATRICK, EVIDENCE 246 (3d ed. 2003) (Federal Rule of Evidence "408 is intended to apply to settlement negotiations in civil cases as indicated by the reference to compromising a 'claim' rather than a `charge.' Plea bargaining in criminal cases is addressed by [Federal Rule of Evidence) 410."). Therefore, Epstein simply cannot rely on Rule 408 as basis for refusing to produce materials connected with plea bargaining.
+
+For all these reasons Epstein's argument that it would contravene public policy to order him to produce his correspondence with the Government should be rejected.
+
+#### B. The Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Does Not Provide any Basis for Resisting Discovery of Materials Already Seen By the Government.
+
+Epstein also half-heartedly continues to press the argument that the magistrate judge emphatically rejected: that producing materials that the Government has disclosed during the plea discussions would violate the Fifth Amendment. Epstein's Appeal at 9-11. His argument to this Court is little more than a "cut-and-paste" of the pleading he filed with the magistrate judge, not even bothering with any revision to discuss the analysis of or cases cited by the magistrate judge.
+
+The magistrate judge rejected Epstein's Fifth Amendment argument because "requests 7, 9, and 10 seek production of documents the government itself gave Epstein, making the government's prior knowledge of the documents sought an obvious and undeniable 'foregone conclusion.' As such, Epstein cannot reasonably and in good faith argue that in producing these documents to Plaintiff he will somehow be incriminating himself." Omnibus Order at 8. The magistrate judge cited as supporting authority In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 383 F.3d 905, 910 (9"' Cir. 2004) (noting there can be no self-incrimination by production where the `existence and location of the documents . .. are a 'foregone conclusion' and [the claimant] . . .adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information by conceding that he in fact has the documents.").
+
+Rather than address this analysis, Epstein maintains that producing the items "could furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him for a crime."
+
+Epstein's Appeal at 9. This claim is remarkable, because Epstein is arguing that the materials at issue — which started in the government's possession -- are now somehow transformed and given Fifth Amendment protection by his mere receipt of them. The Fifth Amendment does not work such alchemy.
+
+It is true, of course, that the Fifth Amendment covers situations where the act of producing documents has "communicative aspects of its own, wholly aside from the contents of the papers produced." Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). But this "act of production" doctrine has stringent limits. It does not extend, for example, to a claim by a taxpayer that he would incriminate himself by producing his accountant's work papers. As the Supreme Court has explained — and the magistrate judge properly recognized -- the government's awareness of these documents was "a foregone conclusion" and therefore their production could be required:
+
+It is doubtful that implicitly admitting the existence and possession of the papers rises to level of testimony within the protection of the Fifth Amendment. The papers belong to the accountant, were prepared by him, and are the kind usually prepared by an accountant working on the tax returns of his client. Surely the Government is in no way relying on the "truthtelling" of the taxpayer to prove the existence of . . . the documents. The existence and location of the papers are a foregone conclusion.
+
+Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410 (emphasis added).
+
+Courts applying this "foregone conclusion" standard to various fact patterns have asked whether the government was aware of the documents' existence apart from any actions of the defendant. Thus, United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), rejected the Government's argument that it was a foregone conclusion that the defendant possessed "ordinary business records." The Court noted that the government had no "prior knowledge" of these records:
+
+Whatever the scope of this "foregone conclusion" rationale, the facts of this case plainly fall outside of it. While in Fisher the Government already knew that the documents were in the attorney's possession and could independently confirm their existence and authenticity through the accountants who created them, here the Government has not shown that it had any prior knowledge of either the existence or the whereabouts of the 13,120 pages of documents ultimately produced by respondent.
+
+Id. at 44 (emphasis added).
+
+In this case, of course, the government's "prior knowledge" of the documents that Jane Doe seeks is obviously and undeniably a foregone conclusion. The government itself gave Epstein the documents! Therefore, there is no plausible argument that, in producing these documents to Jane Doe, Epstein will somehow be incriminating himself by disclosing to the government something that it does not already know. The government clearly has prior knowledge of documents that it gave to Epstein. Here, then - as the magistrate judge properly held relying on an instructive Ninth Circuit opinion (not discussed by Epstein) -- the "existence and location of the documents . . . are a 'foregone conclusion' and [Epstein] . . . adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information by conceding that he in fact has the documents." In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Dated April 18, 2003, 383 F.3d 905, 910 (9th Cir. 2004).
+
+The D.C. Circuit has recently refused to extend the act of production doctrine on facts very similar to those here. In United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313 (D.C. Cir. 2006), federal prosecutors sought information about possible crimes committed by a defense attorney in the course of representing a defendant in a federal case. The prosecutors subpoenaed the attorney to produce all correspondence between him and courts and prosecutors in that case. In summarily rejecting an argument that producing the documents would somehow fall within the act of production doctrine of the Fifth
+
+Amendment, the D.C. Circuit explained that "the government must have known of the existence of documents . . . because it was a party to that correspondence." Id. at 325. The Circuit further explained that the government's subpoena need not "name every scrap of paper that is produced. Because the government already had sufficient knowledge about the . . . [case-related] documents, . . . [the defense attorney] was simply surrendering them, not testifying, by complying with those demands in the subpoena." Id. Other cases similarly reject attempts to use an act of production shield to turning over documents whose existence are known to the government or is a foregone conclusion. See, e.g. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993) (rejecting act of production argument because compliance with subpoena requiring production of a personal calendar 'Would require mere surrender of the calendar, and not testimony" (internal quotation omitted)); United States v. Clark, 847 F.2d 1467, 1473 (10th Cir. 1988) (accounting records not subject to act of production protection; in producing records the defendant would not "authenticate the documents as being his own or being accurate"); Securities and Exchange Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc., 843 F.2d 74, 76 (2d Cir. 1988) (rejecting act of production argument regarding bank records because "everybody knew that they existed").
+
+# C. The Attorney-Client Privilege and Work-Product Doctrines Are Not Applicable to the Discovery Requests.
+
+Although his appeal memorandum is not entirely clear, Epstein also seems to be arguing some sort of attorney-client or work-product privilege bars production of the documents. As the magistrate judge found in rejecting this claim "out of hand,"
+
+Omnibus Order at 9, any such argument is frivolous. As the magistrate judge explained, "The attorney-client privilege protects 'confidential communications' between a lawyer and his client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice." Id. There is nothing confidential about materials being exchanged between Epstein and government prosecutors — regardless of whether the materials or correspondence were being sent from the prosecutors to Epstein or from Epstein to the prosecutors." Epstein does not even acknowledge — much less attempt to refute — the magistrate judge's reasoning for ordering Epstein to produce these materials
+
+# D. The Privacy Rights of Third Parties are Not Implicated By The Magistrate Judge's Order.
+
+In a last attempt to thwart production, Epstein appeals to "third-party privacy rights." Epstein's Appeal at 11. Given the extent to which Epstein's hired investigators have interrogated anyone even remotely connected with this case, this appeal to privacy interests rings rather hollow. In any event, it is odd to think that the privacy rights of these third persons do not interfere with Epstein himself (a convicted sex offender) reviewing these materials but forbid equal viewing by attorneys for a victim who was victimized by him. None of the authorities cited by Epstein are remotely
+
+Jane Doe's request No. 10 sought "NW correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, letters to and from the State Attorney's office or any agents thereof)" (emphasis added). In a cryptic sentence in his appeal, Epstein states "to the extent that the request is now limited to communications from the Government to Epstein, see DE 54, pgs 3 and 8, the narrowed request implicate[s] the same concerns for the opinions, the work product, and the expectation of privacy of the United States Attorney . . . ." Epstein's Appeal at 8. It's hard to understand what Epstein means by this sentence. The cited docket entry — DE 54 — has nothing to do with the discovery request at hand. Perhaps this sentence is simply a mistaken remnant of a botched "cut and paste" from another pleading in another case where docket entry 54 would be relevant. In any event, to be clear, Jane Doe has not "narrowed" her request to only one-half of the relevant correspondence and thus the magistrate judge's order is not limited to one-half of the correspondence.
+
+similar to the case at hand. They all involved third parties asserting their own rights. Epstein simply lacks "standing" to raise the interests of third parties.
+
+And, of course, Jane Doe's counsel are aware of the limits restricting use of information provided in discovery to matters pertaining to the litigation. Jane Doe's counsel understands very well that the names of minor sexual assault victioms should remain confidential, and there is no intent to compromise that the confidentiality of these girls. Therefore, Epstein's argument should be rejected summarily.
+
+### II. THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE PROPERLY ORDERED EPSTEIN TO PRODUCE HIS RECENT TAX RETURNS.
+
+The magistrate judge also ordered Epstein to produce his recent tax returns. Before the magistrate judge, Epstein raised a Fifth Amendment objection to this production. The magistrate judge rejected Epstein's argument for three reasons. First, "the Government, namely the IRS, already has Epstein's tax returns, so it can hardly be incriminating for Epstein to produce them." Omnibus Order at 12. Second, the magistrate judge found "[e]ven more persuasive . . . the fact that tax records and passports, considered by the courts to be 'required records,' are as a matter of law not subject to Fifth Amendment protection." Omnibus Order at 12 (citing Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2d Cir. 2008)); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983); In re Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 644-45 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)). Third, the magistrate judge concluded that any confidentiality of tax records "was properly overridden by the broad federal discovery rules." Omnibus Order at 12.
+
+Before this Court, Epstein continues to push his Fifth Amendment argument, citing general Fifth Amendment cases. He does not dispute, however, that numerous
+
+cases have found no Fifth Amendment protection for tax returns - as the magistrate judge specifically noted in rejecting Epstein's argument. See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2nd Cir. 2008) (". . . a taxpayer's W-2 forms are required records not subject to the Fifth Amendment because they are a mandatory part of a civil regulatory regime . . . . "); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983) ("we have little difficulty applying the required records exception to the W-2 . . forms" and ordering production of W-2 forms over Fifth Amendment objection); In re Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 644-45 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (ordering production of physician's W-2 forms as required records); In re Grand Jury Empanelled March 19, 1989, 541 F.Supp. 1, 3 (D.N.J. 1981). (ordering the production of tax returns and W-2 statements to a grand jury), aff'd, 680 F.2d 327, 336 n. 15 (3rd Cir. 1982) ("[W]e affirm that those subpoenaed documents in the appellee's possession which are required either to be kept by law or to be disclosed to a public agency should be produced for the grand jury's inspection."), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds sub nom. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 608 n.3 (1984). Nor does Epstein contest the magistrate judge's observation that, given the Government already possesses the tax returns, "it can hardly be incriminating for Epstein to produce them." Omnibus Order at 12.
+
+Epstein does not tarry long on these fundamental problems, moving quickly to the claim that even if the Fifth Amendment does not bar production of the tax returns, he is entitled to claim the benefits of some "more stringent" standard for production than would otherwise apply to discovery. Epstein's Appeal at 15. The authority for this claim is said to be Trudeau v. New York State Consumer Protection Bd., 237 F.R.D. 325 (N.D.N.Y. 2006), which reviews some decisions from within the Second Circuit and
+
+discusses a "compelling need" standard that apparently applies in the Northern District of New York. Epstein's Appeal at 15-16.
+
+Epstein's claim suffers from two fundamental problems. First, Epstein simply never argued to the magistrate judge that he was entitled to a more stringent standard of review. Rather, his argument to the magistrate judge was exclusively a Fifth Amendment argument. Epstein's Response in Opposition at 13-15. Here again, in the interests of judicial efficiency, this Court should not consider new arguments advanced for the first time on appeal from a magistrate judge. v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009) ("a district court has discretion to decline to consider a party's argument when that argument was not first presented to the magistrate judge").
+
+Second, whatever may be the law in the Northern District of New York about discovery of tax returns there, the law in the Eleventh Circuit is that tax returns are subject to ordinary discovery principles. Although Epstein's failure to raise the issue below prevented Magistrate Judge from reviewing the issue in this case, the state of the law in the Eleventh Circuit was recently and carefully reviewed by Magistrate Judge in another case. In United States v. Certain Real Property known as and Located at 6469 Polo Pointe Way, Delray Beach, Fla., 444 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1263 -1264 (S.D.Fla.,2006), he explained that this claim of a higher standard had been rejected by Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., Inc., 107 F.3d 846, 853 (11th Cir.1997):
+
+Despite the fact that some Courts within the Southern District of Florida have required a compelling need prior to ordering disclosure of tax records, the Eleventh Circuit declined to adopt such a position. In Maddow, 107 F.3d at 853, the defendants requested plaintiffs' tax returns and sent an interrogatory seeking detailed attorney fee arrangement
+
+information. Although the plaintiffs objected to the tax return request on privilege and relevance grounds, they provided W-2 and 1099 forms to document their earnings. The district court found that the tax records would contain relevant information not contained within the supplied forms, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay three thousand dollars (\$3,000.00) in attorney's fees for not complying with the discovery request. See Id.
+
+On appeal, in affirming the district court's order compelling production of the tax records, the Court stated, "[t]he court's decision to compel discovery was not an abuse of discretion: both items of information are arguably relevant to the case." Id. However, the Court reversed the district court's imposition of sanctions, finding that the plaintiffs were substantially justified in relying on out-of-circuit district court caselaw in support of their contention that a compelling need had to be shown prior to ordering disclosure, where there was no in-circuit caselaw regarding the disclosure of tax records. See Id. It should be noted that while the Court recognized that cases requiring a compelling need to be shown prior to ordering disclosure of tax records [existed], the Eleventh Circuit did not adopt such approach. See Id.
+
+U.S. v. Certain Real Property known as and Located at 6469 Polo Pointe Way, Delray Beach, Fla., 444 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1263 -1264 (S.D.Fla. 2006). This Court should likewise follow the Eleventh Circuit's ruling in Maddow and treat the tax return information as discoverable under ordinary standards. See also Shearson Lehman Hutton v. Lambros, 135 F.R.D. 195, 198 (M.D.Fla.1990) (ordering disclosure of tax returns because such information was relevant to the parties claims and defenses, reasoning that the quasi-privilege for tax returns had not been expressly recognized within the Circuit); Weiner v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 76 F.R.D. 624, 627 (S.D.Fla.1977) (holding that no privilege attaches to tax returns and that their discoverability turns on relevance); MCI Worldcom Network Servs., Inc. v. Von Behren Elec., Inc., No. 1:00CV3311JTC, 2002 WL 32166535, at \*4 (N.D.Ga. May 21, 2002) (same) (citing Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 135 F.R.D. at 198).
+
+Finally, for the sake of completeness, Jane Doe could easily satisfy even a more stringent standard for obtaining Epstein's tax returns. Even courts in New York would order production of tax returns in discovery where "(1) it clearly appears that they are relevant to the subject matter of the action, and (2) a compelling need is shown because the information contained therein is not otherwise available." Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 at \*2 (S.D.Fla.) (S.D.Fla.,2001) (citing v. Hallgarten & Co., 34 F.R.D. 482; 483-84 (S.D.N.Y.1964)).
+
+Epstein's tax returns are clearly relevant to Jane Doe's case for numerous reasons. First, a theory of Jane Doe's case is that Epstein used his wealth and power to lure economically disadvantaged minor girls to his homes in Palm Beach, New York and St. where they were sexually assaulted. Epstein's tax returns will help establish the imbalance of economic power that was at the heart of his ability to pressure them into being sexually assaulted.
+
+Second, Jane Doe is seeking not only compensatory damages but also punitive damages. Epstein's income in recent years is plainly relevant to the size of the punitive damage award that the jury will need to impose to sufficiently punish him and insure that he does not continue the same crimes in the future. Indeed, Epstein appears to concede that his tax returns are relevant to this issue, offering to stipulate that "he has a net worth of over \$50,000,000." Epstein's Appeal at 17. Of course, this stipulation should have been presented in the first instance to the magistrate judge rather than to this Court on appeal. In any event, Jane Doe is entitled to argue for punitive damages based on Epstein's full net worth, not some conservative calculation of a figure that is lower by some undetermined amount. Jane Doe believes in good faith that Epstein's
+
+net worth is substantially more than \$50 million (he has been routinely described in the media as a "billionaire") and is entitled to pursue discovery to confirm her belief.
+
+Third, Jane Doe's counsel continue to receive disturbing reports that Epstein is moving all of his assets overseas in an effort to defeat collection of any judgment that Jane Doe and other plaintiffs may obtain. As the Court is aware, Jane Doe even filed a motion for (among other things) a restraining order forbidding Epstein from making fraudulent transfers of his assets (dkt. #165). The Court ultimately denied that motion, primarily on grounds that while Epstein had taken the Fifth when asked about his fraudulent transfers, Jane Doe lacked affirmative evidence that such transfers were taking place. Order, dkt. #400, at 3.5 Epstein's tax returns may help to provide the affirmative evidence (or lead to affirmative evidence) that such fraudulent transfers are taking place. Cf. Epstein's Appeal at 17 (conceding that his tax returns will reveal "complicated business transactions").
+
+Fourth, Jane Doe has alleged and found some limited evidence suggesting that Epstein is using "modeling agencies" as a means of luring young, under-aged girls to him for sexual purposes. Epstein's tax returns may reveal the existence and location of such modeling agencies.
+
+Fifth, Jane Doe is currently facing Epstein's motion for summary judgment on her count that alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2255, which in turn incorporates sexual
+
+5 Jane Doe was able to produce evidence that Epstein had fraudulent transferred the title to several of his vehicle to third parties in an effort to conceal his ownership of these assets. The Court concluded that these frauds were "de minimis" given Jane Doe's allegation that Epstein was a "billionaire." Order at 3. Epstein's tax returns are also relevant to these issues, since they may show additional assets that have been fraudulently titled and may shed light on the true status of his finances. Moreover, if Epstein's net worth is "only" \$50 million, than it would appear that Epstein had an obligation to call this fact to the attention of the Court at the time that it ruled in his favor based on the fact that he was an alleged billionaire.
+
+assault and child abuse statutes that require a federal nexus (i.e., use of a means of interstate communication). Yet Epstein has filed two in camera pleadings with this Court that appear to detail how his financial information may be relevant to such federal nexus issues. See dkt. #282 and #283 (in camera pleadings). The tax returns may help Jane Doe establish the interstate nexus to Epstein's offenses.6
+
+The second prong of the heightened test would require Jane Doe to establish that "the information contained therein [in the tax returns] is not otherwise available." Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319, at \*2 (S.D. Fla. 2001). Here again, this prong is easily satisfied. Epstein has taken the Fifth on answering (among other things) all financial questions propounded to him and has otherwise thus far thwarted discovery by Jane Doe and other plaintiffs on financial issues as well as all other issues in this case. See, e.g., dkt. #462. While it is clear that Jane Doe will be entitled to an adverse inference as to all issues where Epstein has elected to obstruct discovery through his blanket 51h amendment invocation, Jane Doe anticipates that Epstein will attempt to dilute the impact of such an inference at trial. Therefore, Jane Doe should not be left only with evidence deduced from adverse inferences, and she is deserving of all corroborating documentation that is not blocked by assertions of the 51h amendment. Clearly the tax returns are a way in which Jane Doe can get supporting evidence as to Epstein's finances. Epstein does not argue otherwise. For all these reasons, the magistrate judge properly ordered Epstein to produce his recent tax returns.
+
+6 of course, there are no Fifth Amendment concerns raised by production of tax records already in the Government's possession, for the reasons explained earlier.
+
+#### III. THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE PROPERLY ORDERED EPSTEIN TO PRODUCE HIS GOVERNMENT-ISSUED PASSPORT.
+
+The magistrate judge also required Epstein to produce to Jane Doe his passport (a document obviously issued by the Government). Epstein argued to the magistrate judge that producing the passport might constitute "a link in the chain of evidence" that could tie him to various federal crimes. Epstein's Opposition at 16. The magistrate judge rejected this argument for two reasons. First, the magistrate judge reasoned that "Epstein is required to show his Passport to Government officials every time he travels outside the United States, [so] the Government undeniably has 'prior knowledge' of the Passport's existence, and its whereabouts is a 'foregone' conclusion." Omnibus Order at 12 (citing Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 44). Second, the magistrate judge concluded that the passport was a "required record" to which the Fifth Amendment privilege cannot be properly invoked. Omnibus Order at 12 (citing and quoting Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2d Cir. 2008) ("Just as a taxpayer's W-2 forms are required records not subject to the Fifth Amendment because they are a mandatory part of a civil regulatory regime, so too are the passports . . . at issue in the current case.").
+
+Rather than respond to the magistrate judge's analysis and to the cited cases, Epstein (once again) raises a new set of arguments. Epstein initially claims that he is entitled to invoke a Fifth Amendment privilege for his passport unless Jane Doe can show "that the government has an exact copy of same." Omnibus Order at 19 (emphasis in original). Epstein further contends that "the Order presupposes that the [Customs and Border Patrol] has records of all of Epstein's destinations and that other countries have shared the information with the CPB." Epstein's Appeal at 19.
+
+Here again, this Court should reject Epstein's argument because he failed to present it to the magistrate judge. The Court should be particularly reluctant to venture into the argument that he raises, because it involves certain evidentiary issues about the nature of the Customs and Border Patrol records -- evidentiary issues that were not litigated below. See v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009) ("[t]o require a district court to consider evidence not previously presented to the magistrate judge would effectively nullify the magistrate judge's consideration of the matter and would not help to relieve the workload of the district court") (internal quotation omitted).
+
+Even if the Court decides to review Epstein's claim, the claim is without merit. The controlling case law does not require that the Government have "an exact copy" of the records (as Epstein now argues), but only that the "existence" of the records be a "foregone conclusion" (as the magistrate judge found). For example, in the Hubbard case cited by the magistrate judge, the Supreme Court explained that in an earlier case (Fisher v. United States) it had rejected a taxpayer's efforts to invoke a Fifth Amendment privilege against producing 'Working papers prepared by the taxpayers' accountants that the IRS knew were in the possession of the taxpayers' attorneys." Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 44-45 (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 394 (1976)). While the Government did not have an exact copy of these records (or even any copy for that matter), the Supreme Court rejected a Fifth Amendment invocation because:
+
+It is doubtful that implicitly admitting the existence and possession of the papers rises to the level of testimony within the protection of the Fifth Amendment. . . . The existence and location of the papers are a foregone conclusion and the taxpayer adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information by conceding that he in fact has the papers.
+
+Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 44 (quoting Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. at 411). In line with Fisher, dozens of cases implicitly hold that the Government need not have a copy of records in order to defeat a Fifth Amendment privilege. See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2d Cir. 2008) (ordering production of passports without requiring showing that Government had exact copy of those passports).
+
+As the magistrate judge held, a second reason for rejecting Epstein's attempt to invoke the Fifth Amendment before producing his passport is that the passport is a "required record" for which the Fifth Amendment is simply inapplicable. The magistrate judge cited Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2d Cir. 2008), which specifically held that "[j]ust as a taxpayer's W-2 forms are required records not subject to the Fifth Amendment because they are a mandatory part of a civil regulatory regime, so too are the passports . . . at issue in the current case." Epstein does not respond to this doctrine — or offer any case law in response.
+
+In addition to Rajah v. Mukasey, the magistrate judge could also have cited authority from this Court which specifically adopted that case. In United States v. , 595 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1318 (S.D.Fla. 2009), this Court quoted from and adopted Rajah's conclusion that passports are not protected by the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 1318 ("'the Fifth Amendment does not protect [persons] either from being forced to turn over their passports") (quoting with approval Rajah). This Court went on to explain that, notwithstanding the Fifth Amendment, the Government "may require disclosure of information where the area of inquiry is regulatory rather than criminal, where the field subject to the disclosure obligation is not permeated with criminal statutes, and where there is a substantial non-prosecutorial interest served by the
+
+reporting regime." 595 F.Supp.2d at 138 (citing Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2d Cir.2008)). See also United States v. McDowell, 250 F.3d 1354, 1362 (11th Cir.2001) (Fifth Amendment rights are generally diminished in the context of border crossings). All these rationales apply here. Epstein's passport is simply a government-issued record that he must present whenever he enters this country. The only information disclosed on the passport is stamps placed on it by the United States government or other governments. And, of course, all of this information is reviewed by government agents whenever Epstein crosses a border. In these circumstances, there is plainly no Fifth Amendment privilege for Epstein to invoke.
+
+Finally, Epstein contends that Jane Doe needs to show some kind of "substantial need" for his passport. Epstein's Appeal at 22. This argument was not presented to the magistrate judge and is also frivolous. The discovery rules do not require a request be predicated on a "substantial need" but only that it be "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As Epstein concedes, Jane Doe has been pursuing discovery in this case regarding flight manifests and other international travel by Epstein. Id. at 20. Clearly the passport is relevant to this line of inquiry. It is also relevant to supporting Jane Doe's theory that Epstein has brought minor girls into this country to satisfy his sexual appetite for underage girls.
+
+## CONCLUSION
+
+The magistrate judge carefully considered Epstein's arguments against producing certain materials and, for three particular categories — criminal discovery, tax returns, and a passport - required that Epstein producing them. The magistrate judge
+
+properly analyzed the issues and the ruling requiring Epstein to produce the materials should be affirmed.
+
+Epstein should also be directed to produce the materials within three days, as this Court has indicated would be the requirement upon affirmance of the magistrate judge's order. Dkt. #468 at 1-2 ("In the event that Magistrate Judge February 4, 2010 Order is affirmed on appeal, Defendant will have three (3) business days from the date of this Court's order to produce the documents at issue.")
+
+DATED: March 10, 2010
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+JAFFE, WEISSING, , FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+and
+
+Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 10, 2010 I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+> s/ J. J.
+
+# SERVICE LIST
+
+Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Jqoldberger@aqwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bcIclaw.com
+
+Isidro Manual isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack iph@searcylaw.com •
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike MPike@bciclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawyerswillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsberq@podhurst.com
+
+Adam D. Horowitz
+
+ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein
+
+ssm@sexabuseattornev.com
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748750/EFTA02748750.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748750/EFTA02748750.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..99b505421574980c3a2589e4bfd7e6ccc55e6cb9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748750/EFTA02748750.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1352 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748750.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 27,
+ "chars": 48021,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 3.77,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 49.41
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.520751953125,
+ 49.41
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.520751953125,
+ 78.17999267578125
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 78.17999267578125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR \nRECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 85.68,
+ 366.93
+ ],
+ [
+ 527.2614135742188,
+ 366.93
+ ],
+ [
+ 527.2614135742188,
+ 395.4200134277344
+ ],
+ [
+ 85.68,
+ 395.4200134277344
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 214.2,
+ 601.02
+ ],
+ [
+ 397.52557373046875,
+ 601.02
+ ],
+ [
+ 397.52557373046875,
+ 615.9200134277344
+ ],
+ [
+ 214.2,
+ 615.9200134277344
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "EPSTEIN POSSESSES MATERIALS RESPONSIVE \nTO JANE DOE'S REQUESTS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 162.792,
+ 550.8000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 450.7528381347656,
+ 550.8000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 450.7528381347656,
+ 580.6800079345703
+ ],
+ [
+ 162.792,
+ 580.6800079345703
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ARGUMENT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 269.892,
+ 247.86
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.0747375488281,
+ 247.86
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.0747375488281,
+ 262.56353759765625
+ ],
+ [
+ 269.892,
+ 262.56353759765625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "I. THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE PROPERLY ORDERED EPSTEIN TO PRODUCE \nDISCOVERY AND OTHER MATERIALS FROM THE CRIMINAL CASE.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 69.156,
+ 275.40000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.5281372070312,
+ 275.40000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.5281372070312,
+ 304.1835632324219
+ ],
+ [
+ 69.156,
+ 304.1835632324219
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "A. The \"Purpose\" of the Federal Rules of Evidence Regarding Settlement \nDiscussions Does Not Provide any Basis for Resisting Discovery",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 69.156,
+ 399.3299999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.0267333984375,
+ 399.3299999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.0267333984375,
+ 428.68353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 69.156,
+ 428.68353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "B. The Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Does Not \nProvide any Basis for Resisting Discovery of Materials Already Seen \nBy the Government.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.87599999999998,
+ 165.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.57177734375,
+ 165.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.57177734375,
+ 207.91998291015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.87599999999998,
+ 207.91998291015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "C. The Attorney-Client Privilege and Work-Product Doctrines Are Not \nApplicable to the Discovery Requests.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.87599999999998,
+ 605.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 524.839599609375,
+ 605.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 524.839599609375,
+ 635.8000030517578
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.87599999999998,
+ 635.8000030517578
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "D. The Privacy Rights of Third Parties are Not Implicated By The \nMagistrate Judge's Order.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.87599999999998,
+ 329.66999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 497.55767822265625,
+ 329.66999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 497.55767822265625,
+ 359.79998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.87599999999998,
+ 359.79998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "II. THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE PROPERLY ORDERED EPSTEIN TO PRODUCE \nHIS RECENT TAX RETURNS.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 69.156,
+ 302.94
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.626220703125,
+ 302.94
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.626220703125,
+ 332.04998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 69.156,
+ 332.04998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "III. THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE PROPERLY ORDERED EPSTEIN TO PRODUCE \nHIS GOVERNMENT-ISSUED PASSPORT.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 110.16000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.626220703125,
+ 110.16000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.626220703125,
+ 138.91998291015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 138.91998291015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CONCLUSION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 263.772,
+ 606.6899999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.7690734863281,
+ 606.6899999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.7690734863281,
+ 621.5500030517578
+ ],
+ [
+ 263.772,
+ 621.5500030517578
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 225.216,
+ 110.16000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.0013122558594,
+ 110.16000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.0013122558594,
+ 125.04998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 225.216,
+ 125.04998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 289.17
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.1988220214844,
+ 289.17
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.1988220214844,
+ 304.29998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 304.29998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748750"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748777/EFTA02748777.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748777/EFTA02748777.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2117bd75f79bbf904e5a52461b85eb2a4eff4dbf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748777/EFTA02748777.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+Vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## PRIVACY ACT COURT ORDER
+
+This Order is entered for the purpose of protecting the right of privacy of those individuals, including Jeffrey Epstein whose names appear in records described in the attached Subpoena to Produce Documents in a Civil Action.
+
+An agency is prohibited from disclosing records or information contained in records protected under the Privacy Act unless such disclosure falls within one of the exception set forth at U.S.C. Section 522a(b). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 522a(b)(11), disclosure is allowed if made "pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction." To invoke this exception to the Privacy Act, the Court must make a determination that the need for disclosure of information outweighs the privacy interests of the subject of the disclosure. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, 734 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 1108 (1985); Tootle v. Seaboard
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA'
+
+Coast Line R&R, 468 So. 2d 237, 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984). In this case, the Court finds that the records described are relevant to the issues raised in the above captioned case that the need of the party requesting the records outweighs the potential harm to the subjects of the disclosure. This Order permits the disclosure in the course of this action of the records described in the attached subpoena issued on October 14, 2009 and served on the Federal Bureau of Investigation October 16, 2009.
+
+The materials are provided to counsel for Jane Doe and shall not be disclosed to any person other than attorneys and support staff working directly on the case.
+
+DONE AND ORDERED in at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this day of , 2010
+
+> KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge
+
+Copies furnished to:
+
+All counsel of record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748777/EFTA02748777.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748777/EFTA02748777.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ebda0c197da8b1d0f2128109e1b3064040e4489
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748777/EFTA02748777.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748777.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 2093,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.76,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 409.7621765136719,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 409.7621765136719,
+ 99.54998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 99.54998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PRIVACY ACT COURT ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 216.64799999999997,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 396.2405700683594,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 396.2405700683594,
+ 403.29998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 216.64799999999997,
+ 403.29998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 37
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748777"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748779/EFTA02748779.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748779/EFTA02748779.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e5049577794ec07b1f229444e3d0f3d6021c18f5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748779/EFTA02748779.md
@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+Vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+#### PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER RELEASING FBI RECORDS REGARDING JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+
+Plaintiff, Jane Doe, seeks a court order releasing FBI records about Jeffrey Epstein. Under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11), this Court is authorized to release these material. The FBI has advised Jane Doe that it will release the materials if this Court enters an appropriate order. Jane Doe seeks such an order.
+
+A brief bit of background may be in order. As the Court is well aware, Jane Doe has filed a civil damage action against Jeffrey Epstein for sexual abuse he inflicted upon her when she was child. To prove her case, Jane Doe has been attempting to undertake discovery from Epstein, only to be rebuffed at almost every turn by Epstein's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See, e.g., No.
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA'
+
+9:08-CV-80893, Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production, Dkt. #97 (listing discovery requests blocked by Fifth Amendment invocations).
+
+Because Epstein has been unwilling to answer questions, Jane Doe has been forced to search for other means of discovery. She understands, on information and belief, that the FBI gathered significant information about Epstein during the course of its criminal investigation of him for sexually abusing children. She seeks that information to help support her case against him. Accordingly, she has sent the attached subpoena to the FBI (Exhibit A).
+
+Jane Doe understands that some of the information that the FBI has gathered might contain the names of other young girls whom Epstein sexually abused and who are relevant witnesses to Jane Doe's case. Jane Doe has no wish to make the names of these potential witnesses public and will instead not disseminate those names to anyone outside of the undersigned's law office. For purposes of this specific motion only, Jane Doe identifies two persons as immediate employees (or co-conspirators as labeled in the Non-Prosecution agreement) of Epstein: and . Both of these individuals have been directly and significantly involved in assisting Epstein abuse minor girls and therefore any related investigation into these individuals should also be made available. See Case No. 9:08-CV-80893, Civil RICO Case Statement, Dkt. #14, Attachment 1 (recounting Kellyn and involvement in the scheme).
+
+Because Jane Doe's request is narrowly circumscribed, it is clear that her interests in disclosure outweigh whatever limited privacy interests Jeffrey Epstein might
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA'
+
+have. Jane Doe needs the information to help prove her claims against Epstein. On the other hand, Epstein has no legitimate privacy interests in the records. The records simply chronicle the FBI's criminal investigation of Epstein for sexually abusing minor girls. Epstein has, in fact, entered a guilty plea to a related sex crime in a state criminal case. To further protect Epstein's privacy, Jane Doe has no objection to the materials being provided to counsel under a protective order, barring disclosure to any person other than attorneys and support staff working directly on the case. A proposed order to that effect is attached.
+
+### CONCLUSION
+
+The Court should order release of FBI information about its criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein to Jane Doe and order a protective order limiting further disclosure of the materials.
+
+DATED: March 10, 2010
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+AFFE, WEISSING, , FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+and
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 10, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+J.
+
+#### SERVICE LIST
+
+Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Jdoldberder@adwoa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bcIclaw.com
+
+Isidro Manual isidrodarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack iph@searcvlaw.com •
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA'
+
+MPike@bciclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawyerswillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg riosefsberePoodhurst.com
+
+Adam D. Horowitz ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein ssm@sexabuseattorney.com
+
+# EXHIBIT A
+
+AO 88A (Rev. 01/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition or to Produce Documents in a Civil Action
+
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+
+for the
+
+Southern District of Florida
+
+Jane Doe
+
+*Plaintiff*
+
+v.
+
+Jeffrey Epstein
+
+*Defendant*
+
+)
+)
+)
+)
+)
+)
+
+Civil Action No. 08-80893CIV-MARRA/JOHNSO
+
+(If the action is pending in another district, state where:
+
+## SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION OR TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN A CIVIL ACTION
+
+To: Records Custodian, Fedeal Bureau Investigators,
+C/O [REDACTED] Coulter, 16320 Northwest 2nd Avenue, North Miami Beach, FL 33169
+
+ *Testimony:* **YOU ARE COMMANDED** to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization that is *not* a party in this case, you must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment:
+
+Place: Esquire Court Reporters, 44 West Flager Street
+14th Floor, Miami, FL 33130
+
+Date and Time:
+
+11/09/2009 1:00 am
+
+The deposition will be recorded by this method: Recorded
+
+ *Production:* You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material:
+
+Provide any and all evidence involving the Jeffrey Epstein investigation obtained by the FBI or taken from the Palm Beach Police Department and the Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office to include all videos, compact discs, DVD's, photographs, documentary evidence and any other evidence that the FBI seized from the Palm Beach P.D. or in any way relating to any investigation of Jeffrey Epstein
+
+The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule 45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are attached.
+
+Date: October 15, 2009
+
+CLERK OF COURT
+
+OR
+
+*Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk*
+
+*Attorney's signature*
+
+The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) Jane Doe
+
+Seth Johnson
+
+, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
+
+Brad [REDACTED], Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, Suite 1650, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.
+954 522 3456. Bedwards@RRA-law.com.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748779/EFTA02748779.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748779/EFTA02748779.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6ade876b8c63498b45bc56e6a0c388c49e5d6f33
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748779/EFTA02748779.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,467 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748779.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 7,
+ "chars": 7745,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 11.27,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 71.0675048828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.520751953125,
+ 71.0675048828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.520751953125,
+ 99.54998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 99.54998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER RELEASING FBI \nRECORDS REGARDING JEFFREY EPSTEIN",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 100.36800000000001,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.7380981445312,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.7380981445312,
+ 416.8000183105469
+ ],
+ [
+ 100.36800000000001,
+ 416.8000183105469
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CONCLUSION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 263.15999999999997,
+ 329.66999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.7690734863281,
+ 329.66999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.7690734863281,
+ 345.5499572753906
+ ],
+ [
+ 263.15999999999997,
+ 345.5499572753906
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 225.216,
+ 234.09
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.0013122558594,
+ 234.09
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.0013122558594,
+ 249.17999267578125
+ ],
+ [
+ 225.216,
+ 249.17999267578125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 426.87000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.1988220214844,
+ 426.87000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.1988220214844,
+ 442.29998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 442.29998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "EXHIBIT A",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 173.808,
+ 328.4207458496094
+ ],
+ [
+ 451.0292053222656,
+ 328.4207458496094
+ ],
+ [
+ 451.0292053222656,
+ 391.1376037597656
+ ],
+ [
+ 173.808,
+ 391.1376037597656
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 173.316,
+ 77.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 429.654,
+ 77.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 429.654,
+ 94.77000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 173.316,
+ 94.77000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION OR TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN A CIVIL ACTION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 169.68,
+ 221.94
+ ],
+ [
+ 431.472,
+ 221.94
+ ],
+ [
+ 431.472,
+ 246.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 169.68,
+ 246.24
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 98
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 58
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748779"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748786/EFTA02748786.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748786/EFTA02748786.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3ee6cd75951cbcd0348729426909c9d9b0b8a94
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748786/EFTA02748786.md
@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-CIV —MARRA/a
+
+JANE DOE,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+/
+
+# NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
+
+PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, JANE DOE, will take the deposition of Jean Luc Bruhel on Tuesday, September 22, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., at
+
+Esquire Court Reporters One Penn Plaza Suite 4715 New York, NY 10119
+
+The deposition shall be conducted pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and shall continue day to day, weekends and holidays excepted, until completed.
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served by U.S. Mail and email transmission this WAlay of August, 2009 to all those on the attached Service List.
+
+ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER
+
+Attorneys for Plaintiff 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tel: (954) 522-3456 Fax: (954) 527-8663 Email: bedwardsCatrra-law.com
+
+By:
+
+BRAD ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 542075
+
+oc: Esquire Court Reporters
+
+AO HA (Rev. 01/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition or to Produce Documents in a Civil Action
+
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+
+for the
+
+Southern District of Florida
+
+JANE DOE
+
+Plaintiff
+
+v.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+
+Defendant
+
+Civil Action No. 08-90893ffiV-MARRA/JOHNSO
+
+(If the action is pending in another district, state where:
+
+## SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION OR TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN A CIVIL ACTION
+
+To: Jean Luc Bruhel, 301 E. 66th Street, New York, NY
+
+fi Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a deposition to be talcea in this civil action. If you are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment:
+
+| Place: Esquire Court Reporters, One Penn Plaza Suite 4715, New York, NY | Date and Time: 09/22/2009 10:00 am |
+|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
+|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
+
+The deposition will be recorded by this method:
+
+O Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material:
+
+The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule 45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are attached.
+
+Date: CLERK OF COURT
+
+OR
+
+Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney's signature
+
+The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party)
+
+, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
+
+Brad , Esq., Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Bedwards@rra-law.com. (954) 522 2346
+
+AO 88A (Rev. 0lf09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition or to Produce Documents in a Civil Action (Page 2)
+
+Civil Action No. 08-90893CIV-MARRNJ0HNS0
+
+### PROOF OF SERVICE
+
+(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
+
+This subpoena for (name of individual and fide, if any) was received by me on (date)
+
+O I personally served the subpoena on the individual at (Place) on (date) ; or O I left the subpoena at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name) , a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or O I served the subpoena on (name of individual) , who is designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organisation) on (date) ; or O 1 returned the subpoena unexecuted because O Other (specify): ; or
+
+Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
+
+My fees are \$ for travel and \$ for services, for a total of \$ 0.00
+
+Date:
+
+I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
+
+Server's signature
+
+Printed name and title
+
+Server's address
+
+Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
+
+**Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07)(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena.****(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions.** A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction — which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees — on a party or attorney who fails to comply.
+
+**(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.****(A) Appearance Not Required.** A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.
+
+**(B) Objections.** A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:
+
+(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.
+
+(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.
+
+**(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.****(A) When Required.** On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that:
+
+- (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
+- (ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person — except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where the trial is held;
+- (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or
+- (iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
+
+**(B) When Permitted.** To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:
+
+- (i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information;
+- (ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or
+- (iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial.
+
+**(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative.** In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:
+
+- (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and
+- (ii) ensures that the subpoenad person will be reasonably compensated.
+
+**(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.****(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information.** These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:
+
+**(A) Documents.** A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
+
+**(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.** If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
+
+**(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form.** The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
+
+**(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information.** The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
+
+**(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.****(A) Information Withheld.** A person withholding subpoenad information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:
+
+- (i) expressly make the claim; and
+- (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
+
+**(B) Information Produced.** If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.
+
+**(e) Contempt.** The issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748786/EFTA02748786.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748786/EFTA02748786.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9f6d1e466e8d8d535a15ced4296bc407fb5b4f15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748786/EFTA02748786.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,468 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748786.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 5,
+ "chars": 11107,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 23.98,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 197.06400000000002,
+ 118.25999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.87298583984375,
+ 118.25999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.87298583984375,
+ 147.8035888671875
+ ],
+ [
+ 197.06400000000002,
+ 147.8035888671875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 169.524,
+ 353.96999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 437.3489074707031,
+ 353.96999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 437.3489074707031,
+ 370.55352783203125
+ ],
+ [
+ 169.524,
+ 370.55352783203125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 170.74800000000002,
+ 79.99407958984375
+ ],
+ [
+ 430.0708923339844,
+ 79.99407958984375
+ ],
+ [
+ 430.0708923339844,
+ 100.53924560546875
+ ],
+ [
+ 170.74800000000002,
+ 100.53924560546875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION \nOR TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN A CIVIL ACTION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 168.3,
+ 225.99000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 432.4880676269531,
+ 225.99000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 432.4880676269531,
+ 250.9541015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 168.3,
+ 250.9541015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PROOF OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 246.02400000000003,
+ 106.11000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 352.80364990234375,
+ 106.11000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 352.80364990234375,
+ 118.0946044921875
+ ],
+ [
+ 246.02400000000003,
+ 118.0946044921875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 143.20800000000003,
+ 98.01
+ ],
+ [
+ 452.88,
+ 98.01
+ ],
+ [
+ 452.88,
+ 110.16000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 143.20800000000003,
+ 110.16000000000003
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 41.004000000000005,
+ 117.44999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 222.15599999999998,
+ 117.44999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 222.15599999999998,
+ 128.79
+ ],
+ [
+ 41.004000000000005,
+ 128.79
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 50.79600000000001,
+ 200.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 264.996,
+ 200.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 264.996,
+ 212.22000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 50.79600000000001,
+ 212.22000000000003
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 47.124,
+ 421.20000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 421.20000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 432.54
+ ],
+ [
+ 47.124,
+ 432.54
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 302.328,
+ 116.63999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 460.836,
+ 116.63999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 460.836,
+ 127.98000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 302.328,
+ 127.98000000000002
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 308.448,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 447.37199999999996,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 447.37199999999996,
+ 400.14
+ ],
+ [
+ 308.448,
+ 400.14
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 83
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 70
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 42
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748786"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748791/EFTA02748791.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748791/EFTA02748791.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b3f95c1329f0cf408127f465ec075ab6f4f94241
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748791/EFTA02748791.md
@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH
+JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM
+BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
+
+B.B.,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+Case No: 502008CA37319XXXX MB AB
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+**PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION**
+
+PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE UNDERSIGNED ATTORNEY WILL TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF:
+
+**NAME:**
+
+Jean Luc Bruhel
+
+**DATE AND TIME:**
+
+November 3, 2009
+10:00 AM
+
+**LOCATION:**
+
+Esquire Court Reporters
+515 N. Flagler Drive
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+upon an oral examination before a Notary Public or officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of New York. The oral examination will continue from day to day until completed. The depositions are being taken for purposes of discovery, for use at trial or are being taken for such other purposes as are permitted under the Rules of the Court.
+
+**WE HEREBY CERTIFY** that a true and correct copy of this Notice was mailed this 9 day of October, 2009 to: Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 334101; Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401.
+
+LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A.
+2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
+Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
+(561) 515-1400
+(561) 515-1401
+
+By:
+
+![]()*CO - JE - DT
+Hay Jew*
+
+## IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION
+
+L M, )
+
+)
+
+Plaintiff, ) CASE NO.: 502008CA028051XXXXMB AD
+
+)
+
+vs. )
+
+)
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN, )
+
+)
+
+Defendant. )
+
+)
+
+## NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION
+
+PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attorney for Defendant in the above-styled cause will take the deposition of Jean Luc Bruhnel on November 3, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. for the purposes of discovery at the following location:
+
+Esquire Court Reporters 515 N Flagler Dr West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4321
+
+Said deposition will be taken before Esquire Court Reporters, a Notary Public or any officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Florida, and a person who is neither a relative, nor employee, nor attorney, nor counsel of any of the parties and who is neither a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel, and who is not financially interested in the action.
+
+Said deposition will be taken pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in such cases provided. Said oral examination will continue from hour to hour and from day to day until completed.
+
+Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AD
+
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via U.S. Mail and Facsimile this 7th day of October, 2009 to: Michael Burman, Esq., & Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq., **Burman, Critton, et al.**, 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Jay Howell, Esq., **Jay Howell & Assoc.**, 644 Cesery Boulevard, Suite 250, Jacksonville, FL 32211; and Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., **Atterbury Goldberger et al.**, 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and a courtesy copy to Tama Kudman, Esq., 444 PGA Boulevard, Suite 600, West Palm Beach, Florida 33410.
+
+ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER
+Attorneys for Plaintiff
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394
+Telephone (954) 522-3456
+Telecopier (954) 527-8663
+
+By:
+
+![]()J. [REDACTED]
+Florida Bar No. 542075
+bedwards@rra-law.com
+William J. Berger
+Florida Bar No. 197701
+wberger@rra-law.com
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748791/EFTA02748791.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748791/EFTA02748791.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79707a0ab1649861b3a0d5850a5de877dd05e4f2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748791/EFTA02748791.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,323 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748791.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 3519,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 7.33,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 307.224,
+ 90.72
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.856,
+ 90.72
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.856,
+ 131.22
+ ],
+ [
+ 307.224,
+ 131.22
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 146.88,
+ 257.58
+ ],
+ [
+ 488.98800000000006,
+ 257.58
+ ],
+ [
+ 488.98800000000006,
+ 271.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 146.88,
+ 271.35
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "NAME:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 95.47200000000001,
+ 305.37
+ ],
+ [
+ 140.148,
+ 305.37
+ ],
+ [
+ 140.148,
+ 317.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 95.47200000000001,
+ 317.52
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DATE AND TIME:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 245.412,
+ 305.37
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.556,
+ 305.37
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.556,
+ 317.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 245.412,
+ 317.52
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "LOCATION:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 394.12800000000004,
+ 305.37
+ ],
+ [
+ 465.73199999999997,
+ 305.37
+ ],
+ [
+ 465.73199999999997,
+ 317.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.12800000000004,
+ 317.52
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT \nIN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA \nCIVIL DIVISION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 163.671,
+ 107.73000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 467.5461730957031,
+ 107.73000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 467.5461730957031,
+ 147.20556640625
+ ],
+ [
+ 163.671,
+ 147.20556640625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 223.13199999999998,
+ 311.85
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.82989501953125,
+ 311.85
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.82989501953125,
+ 324.945556640625
+ ],
+ [
+ 223.13199999999998,
+ 324.945556640625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 220.93199999999996,
+ 109.35000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 367.812,
+ 109.35000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 367.812,
+ 122.30999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 220.93199999999996,
+ 122.30999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 70
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748791"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748794/EFTA02748794.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748794/EFTA02748794.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5af26cd3c9aa59e4ae9fdaece04ef62cdb26f303
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748794/EFTA02748794.md
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE,
+
+CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNS ON
+
+Plaintiff vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases: 08080119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## NON-PARTY, JEAN LUC BRUHNEL'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR M4 ORDER TO COMPEL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
+
+Non-party Jean Luc Bruhnel hereby files his Response to Plaintiff, Jane Doe's Motion for an Order to Show Cause and for an Order to Compel and Incorporated Memorandum of Law which was filed on March 10, 2010. (DE#483). Plaintiffs counsel seeks to compel M r. Bruhnel, a citizen who is not a party to the instant action, to sit for a deposition that was canceled and for which he has never been re-noticed. This motion is premature at best, and frivolous.
+
+While visiting New York, Mr. Bruhnel was served with a Subpoena and Notice of Videotape Deposition in this matter.' As a courtesy, undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel
+
+ x27; Please see Exhibit A, annexed hereto and incorporated by reference.
+
+agreed to produce Mr. Bruhnel for deposition in Florida on November 3, 2010 for the convenience of the parties because Mr. Bruhnel had plans to travel to Florida at that time. The videotape deposition was accordingly canceled. Two new deposition notices were then e-mailed to counsel for Bruhnel, both of which emanated from related cases in Florida Circuit Court, with no additional notice emanating from the instant matter before this Court. 2 That scheduled deposition was then canceled by agreement of the parties, who mutually agreed that plaintiff's counsel's secretary would call counsel for Mr. Bruhnel to reset the deposition.
+
+Neither plaintiff's counsel nor his secretary called to reschedule the deposition until January, 2010. In the intervening time, all depositions in the myriad related matters had been canceled, upon information and belief, due to the scandal involving plaintiff's counsel's previous law partner. Further, Mr. Bruhnel had left the United States with no firm plan to return, which was conveyed to plaintiffs counsel during a telephone conversation in January.
+
+Mr. Bruhnel's counsel attempted to secure firm dates on which Mr. Bruhnel would be traveling to the United States, but was unable to do so. Undersigned counsel accordingly informed planitiff's counsel that she could not secure any firm dates. When plaintiff's counsel insisted that Mr. Bruhnel provide deposition dates, plaintiff's counsel was informed that Mr. Bruhnel could not be compelled to return to the United States. Undersigned counsel told plaintiffs counsel that there were appropriate mechanisms through which he could secure Mr.
+
+2 Please see Exhibit B, annexed hereto and incorporated by reference.
+
+Bruhnel's testimony abroad pursuant to Florida, Federal and International law. Indeed, undersigned counsel directed plaintiff's counsel to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Convention, each of which provide specific mechanisms for the securing of testimony abroad.
+
+Plaintiff's counsel has never served Mr. Bruhnel or undersigned counsel with a re-notice for deposition since the cancellation of the prior scheduled depositions, and has never attempted to avail himself of proper legal procedures to secure Mr. Bruhnel's testimony abroad. Further, contrary to plaintiff's counsel's Certification to this court, plaintiff's counsel never conferred with undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel regarding the instant Order to Show Cause and for an Order to Compel.
+
+## MEMORANDUM OF LAW
+
+As stated above, the previously scheduled depositions were canceled by agreement of the parties herein and Mr. Bruhnel has never been re-noticed for deposition. The motion currently before the court is therefore premature and frivolous. Regardless, it is respectfully noted that the Court lacks authority to compel Mr. Bruhnel to return to the United States for deposition. Indeed, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically decline to confer upon the Court the power to compel foreign nationals to appear before it. See Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 45. 28 USC 1783.
+
+The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Convention, however, have each
+
+adopted procedural rules to facilitate the deposition of a non-party foreign national. Indeed, The Uniform Foreign Depositions Act, as adopted by Florida in section 92.251 ("UFDL") provides a road map for litigants seeking to secure evidence from foreign non-party witnesses, stating
+
+(2) Whenever any mandate, writ or commission is issued out of any court of record in any other state, territory, district, or foreign jurisdiction, or whenever upon notice or agreement it is required to take the testimony of a witness or witnesses in this state, witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify in the same manner and by the same process and proceeding as may be employed for the purposes of taking testimony in proceedings pending in this state.
+
+§ 92.251 Florida statutes.
+
+Thus, whenever a Florida litigant desires to depose a witness residing in another state, that litigant must first secure the appointment of a commissioner from the court where the litigation originates. See Freedom Newspapers, Inc. 507 So.2d 1180 (Fla 2d DCA 1987), at 1183. The foreign litigant may then apply to the court having personal jurisdiction over the witness for the process necessary to secure the attendance of the witness. Id. (citing Travelers Indem. Co. v. •, 388 So.2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)). See Greenlight Financial Services. Inc. v. Union America M ortg., Inc, 971 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). This may be done through mechanisms provided via The Hague Convention, to which France is a signatory. Given that several cases are currently pending in Florida Circuit Court that are related to the instant matter, plaintiff may avail herself of this mechanism to secure Mr. Bruhnel's testimony, but has chosen not to. Accordingly, there has been no malfeasance herein by Mr. Bruhnel or his counsel, only nonfeasance by plaintiffs counsel.
+
+Plaintiff's counsel has misrepresented to this court that he spoke to Mr. Bruhnel's counsel about this motion prior to filing it with the Court. Undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel was never notified in any manner that any such motion was being prepared or filed.
+
+Plaintiff's counsel has further misrepresented to this Court that undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel stated that Mr. Bruhnel, "has been out of this country since prior to the New Year with no plans to return." In fact, undersigned counsel has consistently told Plaintiff's counsel that she was unaware of Mr. Bruhnel's travel schedule and that she did not know when Mr. Bruhnel planned to return to this country.
+
+WHEREFORE, JEAN LUC BRUHNEL, a non-party to the instant matter, and undersigned counsel for Mr. Bruhnel, respectfully request that the Court DENY plaintiff's Motion for an Order to Show Cause and an Order to Compel in its entirety. Mr. Bruhnel and undersigned counsel further respectfully request that the Court impose sanctions and attorney's fees incurred in the defense of Plaintiff's frivolous motion, and for whatever further relief this Court deems appropriate.
+
+Dated: March 12, 2010
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+TAMA BETH KUDM AN, P.A. Attorney for Non-Party Witness, Jean Luc Bruhnel 777 South Flagler Drive Suite 800 - West Tower
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 515-6032 Fax: (561) 828-0210 E-mail: Tama@tkudmanlaw.com
+
+By: s/ Tama Beth Kudman TAMA BETH KUDMAN Fla. Bar No.: 0637432
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I hereby certify that on M arch 12, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all parties identified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748794/EFTA02748794.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748794/EFTA02748794.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..37d21d1f00ffe97d32531f7f320ea4f90ca12d66
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748794/EFTA02748794.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,341 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748794.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 6,
+ "chars": 7994,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.96,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 203.796,
+ 73.71000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.4718322753906,
+ 73.71000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.4718322753906,
+ 104.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 203.796,
+ 104.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "NON-PARTY, JEAN LUC BRUHNEL'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF \nJANE DOE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR \nM4 ORDER TO COMPEL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 98.53200000000001,
+ 377.46000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.5869140625,
+ 377.46000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.5869140625,
+ 425.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 98.53200000000001,
+ 425.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "MEMORANDUM OF LAW",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 233.17200000000003,
+ 392.04
+ ],
+ [
+ 380.7169189453125,
+ 392.04
+ ],
+ [
+ 380.7169189453125,
+ 407.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 233.17200000000003,
+ 407.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 227.052,
+ 246.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.6364440917969,
+ 246.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.6364440917969,
+ 261.80352783203125
+ ],
+ [
+ 227.052,
+ 261.80352783203125
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748794"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748800/EFTA02748800.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748800/EFTA02748800.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd509f4d825632ce5b75e980961e10aeb7c49387
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748800/EFTA02748800.md
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA--
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+v.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+### PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF NET WORTH DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT
+
+Plaintiff requests Defendant to produce the following documents within the time required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
+
+## DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
+
+Unless the context indicates otherwise, the following definitions apply to each category of documents listed below and are incorporated by reference into each specific request for documents:
+
+a. The word "document" shall mean any written or graphic matter or other means of preserving thought or expression, and all tangible things (including the original, all copies and all drafts) from which information can be processed or transcribed, including, but not limited to, correspondence, memoranda, notes, messages, letters, telegrams, teletype messages, bulletins, diaries, chronological data, minutes, books, reports, charts, ledgers, invoices, worksheets, receipts, computer printouts, schedules, affidavits, contracts, transcripts, surveys, graphic representations of any kind, photographs, graphs, microfilm, videotapes, tape recordings, motion pictures or other
+
+"A"
+
+films.
+
+b. The word "agreement" shall be deemed to include any agreement executed or in effect at any time during an indicated period, regardless of whether it was thereafter superseded, amended, modified, rescinded or revoked.
+
+c. Production of an agreement shall be deemed to require production of any draft and of any copy of the agreement or the draft thereof which differs in any respect from such original or draft.
+
+d. The word "person" shall be deemed to mean any natural person, the estate of any natural person or any legal entity, including, but not limited to, a corporation, partnership and an unincorporated association, and any officer, director, employee, agent or other person acting or purporting to act on its behalf.
+
+e. Any request for production of a document shall be deemed to require production of each and every such thing executed, created, prepared, received or in effect at any time to the present, or during any other indicated period of time.
+
+f. The word "Plaintiff" shall include Plaintiff "JANE DOE NO. 2", who has been identified in discovery, and any agent, employee or other person acting or purporting to act, or who acted or purported to act, on behalf of the Plaintiff at any time until the present time, or during any other indicated period of time.
+
+g. The words "Defendant" shall refer to JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and any agent, employee or other person acting or purporting to act, or who acted or purported to act, on his behalf at any time until the present time, or during any other indicated period of time.
+
+1. h. The words "you," "your" and "yours" shall refer to Defendant, as defined above.
+2. i. Whenever appropriate, the conjunctive "and" should be interpreted in the disjunctive to include the term "or" and vice versa.
+3. j. Whenever appropriate, the singular form of a word should be interpreted in the plural and vice versa.
+4. k. Any documents responsive to this request which, nonetheless, are not produced by reason of a claim of privilege, work product or for any other reason shall be identified in writing by (1) date; (2) author; (3) recipient; (4) general subject matter; (5) identity of person or persons to whom the contents of the document have already been revealed; (6) the identity of the person or entity now in possession or control of the document; and (7) the basis upon which it is being withheld.
+5. l. Unless otherwise stated, these requests are for documents created or existing in the period January 1, 2002 to present.
+6. m. The word "property" means any tangible or intangible rights or interest of the Defendant.
+
+#### DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
+
+- 1. All federal and state income tax returns, including all W-2 forms, 1099 forms and schedules, for tax years 2003-2008.
+- 2. All documents relating to the assets, liabilities, income, expenses and net worth of Defendant, including without limitation, the following for each of the past five years:
+ - a. annual financial reports;
+ - b. balance sheets;
+ - c. income statements;
+ - d. cash flow statements;
+ - e. quarterly financial reports;
+ - f. budget reports; and
+ - g. financial analysis.
+- 3. All documents which refer or relate to financing or loans requested or applied for by the Defendant, including loan applications, appraisals, financial spreadsheets, etc.
+- 4. Any and all appraisals indicating fair market value of real estate or other property of Defendant.
+- 5. Any and all documents referring or relating to investment or savings accounts, including without limitation, account statements and summaries.
+
+Dated: June 29, 2009
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By:
+
+![]()Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245)
+ssm@sexabuseattorney.com
+Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980)
+ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
+MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A.
+*Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-8*
+18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
+Miami, Florida 33160
+Tel: (305) 931-2200
+Fax: (305) 931-0877
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+
+WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail
+and facsimile to the following addressee this 29 day of June, 2009.
+
+Robert D. Critton, Jr, Esq.
+Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman
+515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561/842-2820 Phone
+561/515-3148 Fax
+rcrit@bclclaw.com
+*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein*
+
+![]()
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748800/EFTA02748800.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748800/EFTA02748800.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0936e4e112dad9e66fb634fa0ba29addc289a8a5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748800/EFTA02748800.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,318 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748800.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 5,
+ "chars": 5603,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 5.55,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 216.036,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 429.0064392089844,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 429.0064392089844,
+ 112.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 216.036,
+ 112.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION \nOF NET WORTH DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 183.6,
+ 297.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 462.3368835449219,
+ 297.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 462.3368835449219,
+ 326.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 183.6,
+ 326.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 219.096,
+ 393.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 427.3839111328125,
+ 393.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 427.3839111328125,
+ 408.7230224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 219.096,
+ 408.7230224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DOCUMENTS REQUESTED",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 224.60399999999998,
+ 85.85999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 384.5968017578125,
+ 85.85999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 384.5968017578125,
+ 100.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 224.60399999999998,
+ 100.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 247.24800000000005,
+ 336.15
+ ],
+ [
+ 358.632,
+ 336.15
+ ],
+ [
+ 358.632,
+ 349.92
+ ],
+ [
+ 247.24800000000005,
+ 349.92
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748800"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748805/EFTA02748805.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748805/EFTA02748805.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f1c8271636477a0942156bc5555f0b3448e73cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748805/EFTA02748805.md
@@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRa
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+### DEFENDANT'S, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED MARCH 4, 2010 (DE 480), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW
+
+Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order (DE 480) pursuant to Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 4, Rule 4(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e). In support, Epstein states:
+
+## I. Procedural Background
+
+Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is filed at DE (333). Defendant's Response in Opposition is filed at DE (390), and the arguments set forth therein are incorporated herein by reference as if completely set forth herein as they apply to request number one (1) of the Request for Production of Net Worth Discovery.
+
+Significantly, these cases have been consolidated for discovery. Therefore, consistent rulings must apply. In making those rulings, this Court must continue to recognize that the allegations in the related cases cannot be forgotten. (E.g., sm DE 242, 293, and 462).' Production of information in one case could provide a link in the chain of evidence used to prosecute Epstein for a crime or provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence in another case and in another jurisdiction. Id. and infra.
+
+The Request for Production and the Responses thereto are cited herein and referenced in DEs 390-1 and 333-1.
+
+# II. The Fifth Amendment
+
+The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial compulsion and provides, in relevant part, that "[nlo person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (1 1 th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not only to answers that would support a criminal conviction, but extends also to those answers which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a crime. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). Information is protected by the privilege not only if it would support a criminal conviction, but also in those instances where "the responses would merely 'provide a lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate." See United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001).
+
+Moreover, the act of production itself may implicitly communicate statements and, for this reason, the Fifth Amendment privilege also encompasses the circumstances where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled
+
+ x27; Notably, a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Rule 4 Appeal was filed relative to DE 462, and thus the requests dealing with tax returns therein are similar in nature when compared to the instant request.
+
+testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would “implicitly authenticate” the requested documents, the act of producing responsive documents is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the “privilege” against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution and also covers those circumstances where the disclosures would not be directly incriminating, but could provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence).
+
+### III. Request Number 1
+
+**Request No. 1:** All Federal and State income tax returns, including all W-2 forms, 1099 forms and schedules, for tax years 2003-2008
+
+**Response to Request Numbers :** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense, however responding to this and other relating inquiries have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information that would be protected. More specifically, the act of producing the above information may implicitly communicate statements of fact in that they would implicitly authenticate the requested information, require Epstein to admit that the requested information exists and admit that same were in his possession, custody and control. The very act of production itself may
+
+therefore provide a link in the chain of evidence adverse to Epstein, see generally United States v Hubbell 520 US 27, 36 (2000)
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the request for production as unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The specific information requested as to tax returns also seeks information that is confidential and protected by federal law, 26 USC 6103. Further, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period from 2003-2008.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be produced, it should not be produced without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be produced at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+As set forth in more detail in DE 390, which was provided to the court in camera, Epstein cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to his financial history and condition without waiving his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, which includes his tax returns. Asking for Epstein's tax returns is financial in nature and it is confidential, proprietary and seeks information much of which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request here is more broad in nature than the requests made by Jane Doe seeking only personal tax returns (i.e., this request here seeks or may seek production of information related not only to Epstein's personal tax returns but also to any alleged tax returns filed by any businesses in which Epstein has an interest in — and Jane Doe 2-8's Request for Production attached as Exhibit "A" does not define what tax returns they seek). Although page 3 of DE 426 seems to connote Plaintiffs seek only Epstein's personal tax returns those too should not be produced under the Fifth Amendment as more specifically set forth herein. Importantly, the Magistrate did not make a ruling on relevancy as to the tax returns, W-2s and 1099s here, and the Plaintiffs have not met the burden of establishing a "compelling need" for the specified information.
+
+Producing the specified information, in full, would result in testimonial disclosures that would communicate statements of fact and would require Epstein to produce the returns, W-2s and 1099s and thereby "stipulate" to their genuiness, their existence, his control of the records, and their authenticity as his executed tax returns even though his possession of such records are by no means a foregone conclusion. Again, the information sought relates to potential federal claims of violations. See DE 390, in camera. Production would therefore constitute a testimonial admission of the genuineness, the existence, and Epstein's control of such records, and thus presents a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination in this case, in other related cases and as well in areas that could result in criminal prosecution. Sse. generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128.
+
+The Court's order seems to piggyback on DE 462 (a similar order), and thus seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's tax returns, W-2s and 1099s must be produced because they are allegedly a mandatory part of a civil regulatory scheme, may have assumed some public aspect and are also a "forgone conclusion" — the concentration of this order being on the "foregoing conclusion" aspect. (DE 480) However, "required records" are ordinarily records collected by highly regulated business (e.g., physicians) wherein the records themselves have assumed public aspects which render them analogous to public documents. See In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641-643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). Usually, these documents are known to more than the filer and the agency in which the document(s) were filed (i.e., known to other persons of the general public). Id. Even though the IRS may have certain returns or other information, they remain confidential under 26 U.S.C. §6103 from any disclosures and are therefore different than a regulated/public record that can be accessed by the public. In Trudeau v. New York State Consumer Protection Bd., 237 F.R.D. 325 (N.D.N.Y. 2006), the court maintained that "[rjoutine discovery of tax returns is not the rule but rather the exception." Id. at 331. The Court went on to note that [for nearly the past thirty-five years, tax returns have been considered `confidential,' pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6103." Id. Because of the principle of confidentiality, it further noted, "courts in the Second Circuit have found personal financial information to be presumptively confidential or cloaked with a qualified immunity," and must, therefore, "balance the countervailing policies of liberal discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil procedure against maintaining the confidentiality of such documents." Id.
+
+To achieve that balance, courts in the Second Circuit have developed a "more stringent" standard than that set forth in the rules. To order disclosure of tax returns, a court must find that "the requested tax information is relevant to the subject matter of the action" and that "there is a compelling need for this information because the information contained therein is not otherwise readily available." Id. The Magistrate's Order makes no such finding in the instant matter, and it assumes that the Federal Government currently has the specified information in its possession. In fact, the burden of showing compelling need is on the party seeking discovery, but once a compelling need has been found, the party whose tax return information has been requested has the burden to "provide alternative sources for this sensitive information. Id. If the requested information is available from alternate sources, disclosure should not be compelled. Potential alternate sources to which the court pointed were gathering the information through deposition or disclosure in an affidavit by the requested party of net worth, wealth, and income. Id. at 331-32.
+
+See Barton v. Cascade Regional Blood Services, 2007 WL 2288035 (W.D.Wash. 2007)("Tax returns are confidential communications between the taxpayer and the government [citing §6103] and although not privileged from discovery there is a recognized policy against unnecessary public disclosure The Court finds no compelling need which overcomes this recognized policy"). Courts have broadly construed these provisions to embody a general federal policy against indiscriminate disclosure of tax returns from any source. Federal Say. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Krueger, 55 F.R.D. 514-15 (N.D. Ill. 1972)("it is the opinion of this court that [§6103] reflect[s] a valid public policy against disclosure of income tax returns. This policy is grounded in the interest of the government in full disclosure of all the taxpayer's income which thereby maximizes revenue. To indiscriminately compel a taxpayer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "public policy against unnecessary disclosure [of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns").
+
+In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at \*2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and that courts should be reluctant to order disclosure during discovery. Citing, Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Energy Gathering, Inc., 2 F.3d 1397, 1411 (5i° Cir. 1993); DeMasi v. Weiss, Inc., 669 F.2d 114, 119-20 (3d Cir. 1982)(noting existence of public policy against disclosure of tax returns); Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975). The court in Pendlebury agreed that parties seeking the production of tax returns must demonstrate (I)
+
+relevance of the tax returns to the subject matter of the dispute and (2) a compelling need for the tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available. Id. at \*2; see also Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Marv's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001); a. Hallorten & Co., 34 F.R.D. 482, 483-84 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). Thus, before the Court can order production of the requested returns, W-2s and 1099s in this matter, the Plaintiffs must satisfy the "relevance" and "compelling need" standards. The Magistrate's Order fails to address the "relevancy" standard and Plaintiffs fail to provide same with supporting argument and case law, and the Plaintiffs fail to delineate any "compelling need" or availability of net worth from other sources (e.g., a stipulation as to net worth, which is certainly an alternative means). To the extent that the Court determines that the tax returns, W-2s and/or 1099s are relevant and that there is a compelling need for at least their disclosure of Epstein's wealth for punitive damage purposes, Epstein would agree to stipulate, through his attorneys, that he has a net worth of over \$50,000,000. Such a stipulation more than satisfies any necessity for the disclosure of the tax information or any additional net worth information.
+
+This court already ruled in DEs 462 and 480 that Epstein is not required to produce his financial history information to the extent same seeks to identify Epstein's assets, where such assets are located and whether such assets have been transferred. W. Moreover, the names and addresses of his accounts, financial planners and money managers were also sustained pursuant to the Fifth Amendment. Id. Therefore, to the extent this court orders production of all federal and state income tax returns, W-2s and 1099s and to the extent Epstein's tax information (personal or otherwise) contain such information, same should be redacted and subject to heightened confidentiality. However, this can only be done subsequent to an in camera hearing wherein this court can make a ruling on relevancy, production, redaction and confidentiality; but only after Plaintiffs show a compelling need.
+
+Furthermore, Epstein's complicated business transactions have no relevancy to this lawsuit and, therefore, evidence of same should not be produced. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This request, if answered, may result in compelled production and/or testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other related inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+Accordingly, any compelled testimony that provides a "lead or clue to a source of evidence of such [a] crime" is protected by Fifth Amendment. SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d at 494. Questions seeking "testimony" regarding names of witnesses, leads to phone or travel records, or financial records that would provide leads to tax or money laundering or unlicensed money transmittal investigations are protected. See also Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)("the right against self-incrimination may be invoked if the answer would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute for a crime").
+
+Wherefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court issue and order:
+
+- a. finding that the danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this case relative to the above request is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary;
+- b. sustaining Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege as it relates to the above request and denying Plaintiffs' Motion in that regard;
+
+c. reversing and/or revising the Magistrate's Order (DE 480) relative to Request Number I and entering an amended order sustaining Epstein's objections to the Magistrate's Order as to that specific request and not requiring him to produce information relative to same; and/or
+
+d. remanding this appeal to the Magistrate-Judge for her reconsideration of these portions of her order;
+
+e. alternatively, if this court rules that any of the information requested herein is relevant, it shall only do so after an in camera hearing and only after this court ensures that each and every document produced is the subject of a heightenedconfidentiality order;
+
+f. for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
+
+Respectfully b
+
+By: MIC KE, ESQ. Florida Bar #61 96
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 14th day of March, 2010.
+
+Respectfully sub
+
+By: ROBE' CRI •N, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit@bciclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+moike®bc1claw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+## Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/.
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ssm@sexabuseattomey.com
+
+ahorowitz@sexabuseattomev.com Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 jaaesu@bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein Brad Esq. , a e, Weissing, Fistos & Le rman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2
+
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 brad@oathtoiustice.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Co-counsel or Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro M. Esq. Law inn, P.A.
+
+"Altura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F
+
+isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+
+Miami, FL 33130
+
+305 358-2800
+
+Fax: 305 358-2382
+
+rjosefsberg@oodhurst.com
+
+kezell®podhurst.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748805/EFTA02748805.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748805/EFTA02748805.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5bdc0f6413b4059d4f6d9937909ee12421b36a7b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748805/EFTA02748805.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,618 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748805.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 12,
+ "chars": 21748,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 10.42,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.98565673828125,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.98565673828125,
+ 103.863037109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 103.863037109375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT'S, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR \nRULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER \nDATED MARCH 4, 2010 (DE 480), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND \nMEMORANDUM OF LAW",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 78.94800000000001,
+ 336.96
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.117919921875,
+ 336.96
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.117919921875,
+ 393.363037109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 78.94800000000001,
+ 393.363037109375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "I. Procedural Background",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 224.60399999999998,
+ 516.78
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.965087890625,
+ 516.78
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.965087890625,
+ 531.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 224.60399999999998,
+ 531.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "II. The Fifth Amendment",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 227.66400000000002,
+ 243.81
+ ],
+ [
+ 386.0524597167969,
+ 243.81
+ ],
+ [
+ 386.0524597167969,
+ 261.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 227.66400000000002,
+ 261.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "III. Request Number 1",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.232,
+ 299.70000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 374.544,
+ 299.70000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 374.544,
+ 314.28000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.232,
+ 314.28000000000003
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 250.92000000000002,
+ 409.86
+ ],
+ [
+ 366.05792236328125,
+ 409.86
+ ],
+ [
+ 366.05792236328125,
+ 425.9730224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 250.92000000000002,
+ 425.9730224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service \nJane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein \nCase No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 189.108,
+ 216.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 393.69342041015625,
+ 216.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 393.69342041015625,
+ 260.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 189.108,
+ 260.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 68
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 69
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 62
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 129
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748805"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748817/EFTA02748817.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748817/EFTA02748817.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..023b0440b64f0fc10c7bcd4fc469c063c9a36215
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748817/EFTA02748817.md
@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
+AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action
+
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+
+for the
+
+Southern District of Florida
+
+|
Plaintiff | ) | |
+|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|-------------------------------------------------------------|
+| | ) | |
+| v. | ) | Civil Action No. 08-CV-80119- Marra |
+| | ) | |
+| | ) | (If the action is pending in another district, state where: |
+| | ) | |
+| Defendant | ) | |
+
+## SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION
+
+To: Records Custodian, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 16320 Northwest Second Avenue, North Miami Beach, Florida, 33169
+
+ *Production:* **YOU ARE COMMANDED** to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material:
+
+See Schedule A as attached.
+
+| Place: Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 | Date and Time: 04/02/2010 10:00 am |
+|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
+|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
+
+ *Inspection of Premises:* **YOU ARE COMMANDED** to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.
+
+| Place: | Date and Time: |
+|--------|----------------|
+| | |
+
+The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule 45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are attached.
+
+Date: 9/12/10
+
+CLERK OF COURT
+
+OR
+
+![]()Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
+
+Attorney's signature
+
+The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) PLAINTIFF
+
+, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
+
+Stuart Mermelstein, Adam Horowitz, Jessica Arbour, Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A., 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218, Miami, FL 33160, (305) 931-2200, jarbour@sexabuseattorney.com.
+
+
+
+AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documeots, Information, or Objects or to Pennit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2)
+
+Civil Action No. 08-CV-80119- Marra
+
+### PROOF OF SERVICE
+
+(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
+
+Emor its subpoena for (name of individual and tide, if any) was received by me on (date)
+
+O I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:
+
+on (date) ; or
+
+O I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:
+
+Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
+
+My fees are \$ for travel and \$ for services, for a total of \$ 0.00
+
+Date: Server's signature
+
+1 declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
+
+Printed name and title
+
+Server's address
+
+Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
+
+**Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07)(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena.****(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions.** A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction — which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees — on a party or attorney who fails to comply.
+
+**(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.****(A) Appearance Not Required.** A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.
+
+**(B) Objections.** A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:
+
+(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.
+
+(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.
+
+**(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.****(A) When Required.** On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that:
+
+(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
+
+(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person — except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where the trial is held;
+
+(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or
+
+(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
+
+**(B) When Permitted.** To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:
+
+(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information;
+
+(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or
+
+(iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial.
+
+**(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative.** In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:
+
+**(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.****(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information.** These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:
+
+**(A) Documents.** A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
+
+**(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.** If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
+
+**(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form.** The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
+
+**(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information.** The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
+
+**(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.****(A) Information Withheld.** A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:
+
+(i) expressly make the claim; and
+
+(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
+
+**(B) Information Produced.** If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.
+
+**(e) Contempt.** The issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).
+
+## Schedule A
+
+Sworn statements taken during the investigation of Jeffrey Edward Epstein (358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, FL, DOB: 01/20/1953) from the following:
+
+(DOB: 2/29/1988)
+
+(DOB: 3/5/1988)
+
+ann.ilkDOB: 6/6/1987)
+
+(DOB: 10/23/1986)
+
+gMl (DOB: 9/30/1990)
+
+(DOB: 06/30/1987)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748817/EFTA02748817.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748817/EFTA02748817.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..723b8bb9d51128312812fd070f2ebc994eeb3046
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748817/EFTA02748817.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,413 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748817.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 11208,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 24.03,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_179.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 179.928,
+ 80.19
+ ],
+ [
+ 440.64,
+ 80.19
+ ],
+ [
+ 440.64,
+ 98.01
+ ],
+ [
+ 179.928,
+ 98.01
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 127.90799999999999,
+ 227.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 490.824,
+ 227.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 490.824,
+ 252.71999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 127.90799999999999,
+ 252.71999999999997
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PROOF OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 256.428,
+ 103.68
+ ],
+ [
+ 363.7236633300781,
+ 103.68
+ ],
+ [
+ 363.7236633300781,
+ 116.214599609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 256.428,
+ 116.214599609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 152.388,
+ 95.58
+ ],
+ [
+ 469.404,
+ 95.58
+ ],
+ [
+ 469.404,
+ 108.53999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 152.388,
+ 108.53999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 48.348,
+ 115.01999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 233.17200000000003,
+ 115.01999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 233.17200000000003,
+ 125.55000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 48.348,
+ 125.55000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 56.916000000000004,
+ 199.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 275.4,
+ 199.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 275.4,
+ 210.60000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 56.916000000000004,
+ 210.60000000000002
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 50.79600000000001,
+ 422.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 204.40800000000002,
+ 422.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 204.40800000000002,
+ 433.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 50.79600000000001,
+ 433.35
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 315.18,
+ 115.01999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 477.36,
+ 115.01999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 477.36,
+ 126.35999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 315.18,
+ 126.35999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 318.24,
+ 391.23
+ ],
+ [
+ 460.836,
+ 391.23
+ ],
+ [
+ 460.836,
+ 402.57
+ ],
+ [
+ 318.24,
+ 402.57
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Schedule A",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 270.504,
+ 72.21331787109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 345.9271240234375,
+ 72.21331787109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 345.9271240234375,
+ 89.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 270.504,
+ 89.1
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 88
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 40
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 58
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748817"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748817/_page_0_Picture_179.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748817/_page_0_Picture_179.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..efeca8f3f505164497bf40745059a00675bbe6b2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748817/_page_0_Picture_179.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:5d9ea8fd5cc537f70a5fa9a389863d4d697c32551809092e1f664673cba9b521
+size 5639
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748821/EFTA02748821.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748821/EFTA02748821.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b88091d559d7f01ab27d7b9dc456820b98674706
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748821/EFTA02748821.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
+
+## ORDER
+
+Upon Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Jane Doe Nos. 2-7's Sworn Statements to FBI Investigators, and good cause being shown, it is hereby
+
+ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is Granted. Pursuant to the Federal Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (b)(11), the Records Custodian of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is ordered to comply with the subpoena dated March 12, 2010 and is directed to produce the sworn statements of Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 taken during its investigation of Jeffrey Epstein within 7 days, and any other materials responsive to the subpoena.
+
+DONE AND ORDERED in at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this day of 2010.
+
+DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
+
+Copies furnished to: Counsel of record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748821/EFTA02748821.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748821/EFTA02748821.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f43de973a20f9b2e2653097e35f12fae8f1d98c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748821/EFTA02748821.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748821.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 1012,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.81,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 99.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 99.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 282.13200000000006,
+ 347.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.7633361816406,
+ 347.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.7633361816406,
+ 362.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 282.13200000000006,
+ 362.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748821"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748822/EFTA02748822.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748822/EFTA02748822.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55e1c2ba9166eb7970ae213afc69e23e6d68790c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748822/EFTA02748822.md
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
+
+### PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NOS. 2-7'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF JANE DOE NOS. 2-7'S SWORN STATEMENTS TO FBI INVESTIGATORS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
+
+Plaintiffs, Jane Does Nos. 2-7, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file this Motion to Compel Production of Jane Doe Nos. 2-7's Sworn Statements to FBI Investigators and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and state as follows:
+
+- 1. These lawsuits arise from the alleged childhood sexual battery of Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 by Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein").
+- 2. Prior to the filing of the Plaintiffs' lawsuits, Epstein was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). During the course of the FBI's investigation, some or all of Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 were interviewed by FBI agents and asked to provide sworn statements about their sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein, the same abuse underlying
+
+the factual allegations in the lawsuits now in front of this Court.
+
+3. Pursuant to FBI protocol and the Federal Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b), Plaintiff's undersigned counsel has served a subpoena on the Records Custodian of the FBI's Miami office requesting the sworn statements of Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 given to FBI agents during their criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. See Exhibit "A."
+
+4. The FBI informed Plaintiffs' counsel that it requires further authorization in order to release the Plaintiffs' own sworn statements pursuant to the Federal Privacy Act. Counsel for the FBI has advised that an Order from this Court authorizing the FBI to release the requested statements would be sufficient. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a (b)(11). A proposed Order authorizing the FBI to release the subpoenaed statements is attached as Exhibit "B."
+
+5. The requested statements are directly relevant and germane to the factual allegations underlying the Plaintiffs' lawsuits and seemingly cannot be obtained by the Plaintiffs in any other way. Upon information and belief, the Defendant is already in possession of these documents.
+
+6. Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with counsel for the Defendant who advised that Defendant opposes the relief requested.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Jane Does Nos. 2-7, respectfully request an Order directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to release any sworn statements of Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 given to the FBI during the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and any materials responsive to the subpoena served upon the FBI.
+
+# Certificate Pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(A)(3)
+
+Undersigned counsel has conferred with Defendant's counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in this Motion, and has been unable to do so.
+
+Dated: March 17, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: s/ Adam D. Horowitz Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) ssm@sexabuseattorney.com Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com Jessica D. Arbour (FL Bar No. 67885) jarbour@sexabuseattorney.com MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I hereby certify that on March 17, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+/s/ Adam D. Horowitz
+
+## SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. iRoldberger@agwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bciclaw.com
+
+James bedwards@rra-law.com
+
+Isidro Manuel isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack jph@searcylaw.com U
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike MPike@bc1claw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawyerwillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
+
+By facsimile and U.S. Mail to:
+
+Navas, Esq. Chief Division Counsel Federal Bureau of Investigations 16320 N.W. 2nd Avenue North Miami Beach, FL 33169
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748822/EFTA02748822.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748822/EFTA02748822.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1abbb4e811f4342f738a3c6b78abc092d1472ef2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748822/EFTA02748822.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,296 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748822.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 4520,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.89,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NOS. 2-7'S MOTION \nTO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF JANE DOE NOS. 2-7'S \nSWORN STATEMENTS TO FBI INVESTIGATORS \nAND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 153.0,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 460.5676574707031,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 460.5676574707031,
+ 445.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 153.0,
+ 445.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate Pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(A)(3)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 192.78000000000003,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 419.05438232421875,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 419.05438232421875,
+ 86.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 192.78000000000003,
+ 86.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 226.44,
+ 441.45000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 441.45000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 455.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 226.44,
+ 455.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST \nDOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN \nUnited States District Court, Southern District of Florida",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 156.67200000000003,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 156.67200000000003,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748822"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748826/EFTA02748826.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748826/EFTA02748826.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f175232d27eb6715c7896d8c1c054a0e962c1931
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748826/EFTA02748826.md
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
+
+#### NOTICE THAT ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ DOES NOT INTEND TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 2's MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUPBOENA AND FOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT AGAINST ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ
+
+Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2 et al., by and through undersigned counsel, hereby provide this notice to the Court with regard to Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2's Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena and Order of Contempt Against Alfredo Rodriguez (DE 469), as follows:
+
+- I. Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena et al. on February 17, 2010. A response to the Motion was due on or before March 8, 2010. To date, non-party Alfredo Rodriguez has filed no response to Plaintiffs' Motion.
+- 2. On March 17, 2010, the undersigned counsel conferred with Dave Lee Brannon, Esq., the criminal defense attorney for Alfredo Rodriguez. Mr. Brannon advised the undersigned counsel that non-party Rodriguez will not be filing papers in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs lane Doe Nos. 2-8 respectfully request that this Court enter an Order granting the relief requested in Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena and Order for Contempt Against Alfredo Rodriguez.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) ssm@sexabuseattorney.com Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I hereby certify that on March 18, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+hl Stuart S. Mermelstein
+
+### SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. igoldberger@agwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bciclaw.com
+
+James brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+Isidro Manuel isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack jph@searcylaw.com U
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike MPike@bciclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawyerwillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
+
+# Via Facsimile and Regular Mail:
+
+Dave Lee Brannon, Esq. Federal Public Defender 450 S Australian Ave Ste 500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5008 Fax: (561) 833-0368
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748826/EFTA02748826.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748826/EFTA02748826.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..50303c4c6a04518950bbb5185abcff3470630108
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748826/EFTA02748826.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,262 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748826.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 3031,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.86,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "NOTICE THAT ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ DOES NOT \nINTEND TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 2's \nMOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUPBOENA AND \nFOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT AGAINST ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 123.62400000000002,
+ 388.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 489.3937683105469,
+ 388.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 489.3937683105469,
+ 445.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 123.62400000000002,
+ 445.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 225.82799999999997,
+ 372.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 372.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 387.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 225.82799999999997,
+ 387.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST \nDOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN \nUnited States District Court, Southern District of Florida",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 156.67200000000003,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 156.67200000000003,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Via Facsimile and Regular Mail:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 553.23
+ ],
+ [
+ 242.46774291992188,
+ 553.23
+ ],
+ [
+ 242.46774291992188,
+ 569.2330169677734
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 569.2330169677734
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 66
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748826"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748829/EFTA02748829.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748829/EFTA02748829.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a95e58acaa39cad9c2167495791244b906e4bded
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748829/EFTA02748829.md
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER
+
+This matter came before the Court on Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Plaintiff, JANE DOE'S, Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Appeal (DE 485), having considered Defendant's Motion, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
+
+Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file his Reply to Plaintiff, JANE DOE'S, Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Appeal on or before March 26, 2010.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010.
+
+Kenneth A. Marra United States District Judge
+
+Courtesy Copies all counsel
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748829/EFTA02748829.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748829/EFTA02748829.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1728bf13a558e6642aa9ce6fb4ef068843b11c28
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748829/EFTA02748829.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748829.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 963,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.83,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 417.74566650390625,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 417.74566650390625,
+ 101.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 101.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 287.02799999999996,
+ 375.03000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 337.1278991699219,
+ 375.03000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 337.1278991699219,
+ 391.85302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 287.02799999999996,
+ 391.85302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748829"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748830/EFTA02748830.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748830/EFTA02748830.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..457e143dcfd141db07779206c9cad0f338e7ce72
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748830/EFTA02748830.md
@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MAlta
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+### DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE'S, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL (485)
+
+Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an Extension of Time in which to Reply to Plaintiff, Jane Doe's, Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal. Defendant seeks an additional four (4) day extension until March 26, 2010 to file his Reply. As good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant states:
+
+- I. On February 4, 2010 this Court entered an Omnibus Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (DE 462).
+- 2. On February 26, 2010 Defendant filed his Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal (DE 477).
+
+3. On March 10, 2010 Plaintiff filed her Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal (DE 485).
+
+4. Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition is currently due on March 22, 2010.
+
+5. Robert D. Critton, counsel for the Defendant, is currently out of town and Michael J. Pike, counsel for the Defendant, has attended three (3) depositions in related matters this week and therefore needs a simple four (4) days extension to file Defendant's Reply.
+
+6. While this request is reasonable, counsel for the Defendant has spoken to counsel for the Plaintiff and he is not in agreement with the requested four (4) day extension.
+
+Wherefore, the undersigned respectfully requests the relief sought herein, and for such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper.
+
+# Local Rule 7.1 Statement
+
+Counsel for the movant conferred by e-mail with counsel for the Plaintiff and Counsel for Plaintiff is not in agreement with the requested extension.
+
+> By: /s/ Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR. Florida Bar #224I62 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+### Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by electronic mail (e-mail) on this 18th day of March, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: / Micha . Pike
+
+ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar No. 224162
+
+rcritAbc1claw.com
+
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar #617296
+
+mpike@bc1claw.com
+
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
+
+303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561/842-2820 Phone
+
+561/515-3148 Fax
+
+(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+### Certificate of Service
+
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey E
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRAJ
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+
+Suite 2218
+
+Miami, FL 33160
+
+305-931-2200
+
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+
+ssm@sexabuseattomey.com
+
+ahorowitz®sexabuseattorney.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs
+
+In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993,
+
+08-80994
+
+, Jaffe, Weissing, Fistos
+
+& Lehrman, PL
+
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+
+Suite 2
+
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+
+brad@patInoiustice.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.
+
+08-80893
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+
+Pro Hac Vice
+
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+561-659-8300
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+[jagesq@bellsouth.net](mailto:jagesq@bellsouth.net)
+*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein*
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+Miami, FL 33130
+305 358-2800
+Fax: 305 358-2382
+[rjosefsberg@podhurst.com](mailto:rjosefsberg@podhurst.com)
+[kezell@podhurst.com](mailto:kezell@podhurst.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos.
+09-80591 and 09-80656*
+
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+801-585-5202
+801-585-6833 Fax
+[cassellp@law.utah.edu](mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu)
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+
+Isidro M. [REDACTED], Esq.
+[REDACTED] a Law Firm, P.A.
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561-832-7732
+561-832-7137 F
+[isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net](mailto:isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.
+08-80469*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748830/EFTA02748830.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748830/EFTA02748830.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..72e45a7cd565521a371b02f533a745a2851cafb1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748830/EFTA02748830.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748830.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 4789,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 5.86,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 76.14
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.48800000000006,
+ 76.14
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.48800000000006,
+ 102.87
+ ],
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 102.87
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY \nTO PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE'S, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S \nMOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR \nRULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL (485)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 108.93599999999999,
+ 364.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.856,
+ 364.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.856,
+ 416.34000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 108.93599999999999,
+ 416.34000000000003
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Local Rule 7.1 Statement",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 245.412,
+ 463.32
+ ],
+ [
+ 381.24114990234375,
+ 463.32
+ ],
+ [
+ 381.24114990234375,
+ 480.35302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 245.412,
+ 480.35302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 251.53199999999998,
+ 92.34
+ ],
+ [
+ 362.916,
+ 92.34
+ ],
+ [
+ 362.916,
+ 105.30000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 251.53199999999998,
+ 105.30000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 254.59199999999998,
+ 450.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 366.54669189453125,
+ 450.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 366.54669189453125,
+ 463.32
+ ],
+ [
+ 254.59199999999998,
+ 463.32
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 232
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 254
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748830"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748834/EFTA02748834.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748834/EFTA02748834.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c5a4436738b49504a349f0d9b59b00e9ad485fc0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748834/EFTA02748834.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/.
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND SHORTEN EXPERT DISCLOSURES
+
+This matter came before the Court on a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Deadlines and Shorten Expert Disclosures. Having considered the Joint Motion it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED as follows:
+
+- 1. Jane Does 2-4 discovery cutoff is extended to April 30, 2010 and the parties will exchange their expert reports on or before May 14, 2010.
+- 2. Jane Does 5-7 discovery cutoff is extended to June 6, 2010 and the parties will exchanges their expert reports on or before June 6, 2010.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010.
+
+Kenneth A. Marra United States District Judge 08-CIV-80119-Marra/M
+
+Related cases 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+Page 2
+
+Courtesy Copies:
+
+Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748834/EFTA02748834.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748834/EFTA02748834.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea32b923c6619b7541df6f8a09cb6b9f86e10db3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748834/EFTA02748834.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748834.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1226,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.8,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.61566162109375,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.61566162109375,
+ 101.9730224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 101.9730224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME \nTO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND SHORTEN EXPERT \nDISCLOSURES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 118.116,
+ 361.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 505.1854248046875,
+ 361.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 505.1854248046875,
+ 405.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 118.116,
+ 405.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748834"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748836/EFTA02748836.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748836/EFTA02748836.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a1973ff0c1ce5767c64ddb0fbeb20b2264cd62c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748836/EFTA02748836.md
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CI -80119-MARRA/Me
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+### JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND SHORTEN EXPERT DISCLOSURES
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, and Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through their undersigned attorneys respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time to complete discovery deadlines, and as good cause in support of granting the motion, states as follows:
+
+- 1. These cases are currently set on a two week trial docket commencing on September 27, 2010.
+- 2. The majority of the depositions of Plaintiffs have been taken but the majority have not been completed. A number of witness depositions have yet to occur. In fact, Defendant has over thirty (30) depositions that he believes are needed to complete discovery, dates for which Defendant's counsel requested from Plaintiffs' counsel on March 9, 2010. Plaintiffs
+
+Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 2
+
+counsel is working on the scheduling of these depositions. Additionally, the deposition of Jeffrey Epstein has not been completed, and Plaintiffs have additional depositions to take, some of which are out of state.
+
+3. The scheduling of depositions in this matter has become much more difficult since the case was consolidated on May 14, 2009, due to the number of attorneys involved and the fact that witnesses, plaintiffs and the defendant may only be deposed once. (See Order Consolidating Cases for Purpose of Discovery and Procedural Motions That Relate to Multiple Cases). Additionally, many of the witnesses retained their own counsel, and the depositions need to be coordinated with those attorneys' schedules.
+
+5. Due to the fact that depositions are still being scheduled, both Plaintiffs and Defendant are in agreement with extending the discovery cutoff in Jane Does 2-4 an additional two (2) weeks from April 12, 2010, making the new discovery cutoff date April 30, 2010 and extending the discovery cutoff in Jane Does 5-7 to May 28, 2010.
+
+6. Further, the current scheduling order requires expert reports to be disclosed on July 1, 2010. The parties have agreed to disclose the expert reports in Jane Does 2-4 on May 14, 2010 and in Jane Does 5-7 on June 6, 2010.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendant request that this Court enter an order granting the Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Deadline and Shorten Expert Disclosures.
+
+# CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1
+
+Counsel for the parties conferred via e-mail and are in agreement with moving the above dates.
+
+Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 3
+
+> By: /s/ Robert D. Critton ROBERT D. CRITTON, ESQ. Florida Bar # 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 18th day of March 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Robert D. Critton ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit@bciclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mpike@bciclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 4
+
+#### Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRAJJOHNSON
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ssm@sexabuseattomey.com ahorowitz@sexabuseattomey.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300
+
+Fax: 561-835-8691 jagesq(@,bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+
+Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382
+
+riosefsberg@podhurst.com kezell@podhurst.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656
+
+, Jaffe, Weissing, , Fistos & Lehrman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 brad pathtoiustice.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax cassellp@law.utalledu Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe
+
+Isidro M. =, Esq.
+
+Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732
+
+561-832-7137 F isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748836/EFTA02748836.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748836/EFTA02748836.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6031eaa02aa8f8e272fc731db006b685b7cebe13
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748836/EFTA02748836.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,300 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748836.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 5224,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.38,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 88.28999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.48800000000006,
+ 88.28999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.48800000000006,
+ 115.83
+ ],
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 115.83
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME \nTO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND SHORTEN EXPERT DISCLOSURES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 74.66399999999999,
+ 378.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.2521362304688,
+ 378.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.2521362304688,
+ 407.43
+ ],
+ [
+ 74.66399999999999,
+ 407.43
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 165.24,
+ 632.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 498.1211242675781,
+ 632.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 498.1211242675781,
+ 650.9730072021484
+ ],
+ [
+ 165.24,
+ 650.9730072021484
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 252.75599999999997,
+ 248.67000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 369.09051513671875,
+ 248.67000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 369.09051513671875,
+ 265.4730224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 252.75599999999997,
+ 265.4730224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service \nJane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein \nCase No. 08-CV-80119-MARRAJJOHNSON",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 191.55599999999998,
+ 112.59
+ ],
+ [
+ 422.28,
+ 112.59
+ ],
+ [
+ 422.28,
+ 153.09
+ ],
+ [
+ 191.55599999999998,
+ 153.09
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 217
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 302
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 68
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748836"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748840/EFTA02748840.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748840/EFTA02748840.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2fca6b1d2610e859b918360a9d5935b1dcfc00b7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748840/EFTA02748840.md
@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+/
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
+
+/
+
+# PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-8' APPEAL PURSUANT TO S.D.FLA.MAG.R. 4 AND OBJECTIONS AS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER ON NET WORTH DISCOVERY
+
+Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2 et al., by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file this Appeal and Objections Pursuant to S.D.Fla. Mag.R. 4 as to the Magistrate Judge's Order dated March 4, 2010 (DE 480), in accordance with S.D.Fla.Admin. Order 2009-51, as follows:
+
+#### Introduction
+
+This appeal concerns Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege in response to Plaintiffs' interrogatories and request for production seeking net worth discovery. This discovery is pertinent to Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages. The Court previously considered the issue of Defendant's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege with regard to Plaintiffs' discovery requests concerning the substantive claims and defenses in these cases. By Order dated January 27, 2010, this Court denied the
+
+Plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's discovery order, which upheld in substantial part the Defendant's assertions of the Fifth Amendment privilege. (DE 455).
+
+The present issue, concerning net worth discovery, is very different. The connection between the generic documents and information sought by Plaintiffs regarding the Defendant's financial status and Defendant's apprehension of a real danger of incrimination would seem to be significantly more obscure and attenuated. Under these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Magistrate Judge to consider the Defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege claims with respect to each specific document request and interrogatory, in connection with the Defendant's in camera submission.' The Magistrate Judge did so with respect to Plaintiff's document request no. 1, which seeks Defendant's federal and state income tax returns.2 It is not otherwise apparent from the Magistrate Judge's Order, however, that each document request was considered vis-avis the question of whether the act of production of responsive documents could be incriminating. Likewise, it is not apparent that the Magistrate Judge considered each net worth interrogatory with respect to the danger of incrimination.
+
+For the reasons set forth below, the Magistrate Judge's Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law to the extent that it upheld the Defendant's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege in response to Plaintiff's requests for production nos. 2-5, and interrogatory nos. 1-13. Plaintiffs request that the Magistrate Judge's Order be set aside accordingly.
+
+Plaintiffs, of course, must necessarily argue the Fifth Amendment issues arising from Plaintiffs' net worth discovery requests without the benefit of Defendant's in camera submission. Plaintiffs nonetheless assume for present purposes that, notwithstanding the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Defendant apprehends prosecution for federal offenses involving sexual activities with minors and for international sex trafficking, including offenses concerning money transfers and laundering pertaining to such trafficking. (See Magistrate Judge's Order, p. 6).
+
+2 Defendant has filed an objection to the portion of the Magistrate Judge's Order rejecting the Defendant's privilege claims as to tax returns (DE 477), which Plaintiffs oppose.
+
+# Argument
+
+# I. THE ACT-OF-PRODUCTION DOCTRINE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE DEFENDANT'S ASSERTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' NET WORTH DOCUMENT REQUESTS
+
+Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Net Worth Documents included five basic requests, as follows:
+
+- I. All Federal and State income tax returns, including all W-2 forms, 1099 forms and schedules, for tax years 2003-2008.
+- 2. All documents relating to the assets, liabilities, income, expenses, and net worth of Defendant, including without limitations, the following for each of the past five (5) years:
+- a. Annual financial reports;
+- b. Balance sheets;
+- c. Income statements;
+- d. Cash flow statements;
+- e. Quarterly financial reports;
+- f. Budget reports; and
+- g. Financial analysis.
+- 3. All documentation which refer or relate to financing or loans requested or applied for by the Defendant, including loan applications, appraisals, financial spreadsheets, etc.
+- 4. Any and all appraisals indicating fair market value of real estate or other property of Defendant.
+- 5. Any and all documents referring to or relating to investment or savings accounts, including, without limitations, account statements and summaries.
+
+The Fifth Amendment does not provide a basis to assert a blanket privilege in response to these requests "merely because the demanded documents contained incriminatory evidence, whether written by others or voluntarily prepared by [the party asserting the privilege]." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000). "The act of producing evidence in response to a subpoena nevertheless has communicative aspects of its own, wholly aside from
+
+the contents of the papers produced." Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 1581 (1976). The "act of production" doctrine established in Fisher, however, is not a panacea for avoiding all requests for production in their entirety. It is incumbent upon the Court to determine how the purported testimonial act of production could be incriminatory with respect to each category of documents sought. See Fisher 425 U.S. at 411, 96 S.Ct. at 1581 (finding that the act of production of accountants' records did not "pose() any realistic threat of incrimination"); See also In re Connelly, 59 B.R. 421, 434-35 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1986) (holding that debtor's "lack of any specificity" in assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege was deficient).
+
+Plaintiffs' document request no. 2 seeks various financial statements and reports. Such documents, by their nature, would not reveal any information regarding specific transfers or transactions. These documents would set forth standard accounting categories and corresponding numbers which will be useful for net worth discovery. They could not conceivably be a link in the chain of evidence for the crimes that would be of concern to Defendant. In Fisher, the Court held that work papers prepared for the defendant by an accountant were not protected by the Fifth Amendment: "At this juncture, we are quite unprepared to hold that either the fact or existence of the papers or of their possession by the taxpayer poses any realistic threat of incrimination to the taxpayer." Id. at 1581.
+
+Plaintiffs' document request no. 3 seeks documents relating to financing or loans requested or applied for by Defendant. If, for example, if Defendant applied for a home mortgage, it is inconceivable that the act of producing such financing documents could be a link in the chain of evidence of a crime. In Connelly, the Court rejected a bankruptcy debtor's blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege because it would encompass categories of documents that would not risk incrimination:
+
+[l]f Connelly fears investigation of his recent business practices while with Churchfield, how would disclosure of his nonbusiness property incriminate him? If he owns a personal residence and auto, or life savings and investments, or if a relative died leaving him property that he now holds personally, by what application of the Fifth Amendment can he now hide that, or information concerning it, from his creditors because of an unrelated business investigation? And if he apprehends a criminal investigation for certain business activities in a given time frame, why does he apprehend incrimination for answering questions about other unrelated business activities at other times?
+
+59 B.R. at 435. Likewise, Defendant Epstein's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege in response to all responsive net worth documents appears egregiously overbroad and dubious.
+
+Plaintiffs' document request no. 4 seeks real estate appraisals and appraisals of other property of the Defendant. An appraisal is an independent opinion and evaluation on the value of specific property. Defendant Epstein's ownership of real property is known to the criminal authorities. Again, it is inconceivable that the act of producing such a document could be a link in the chain of evidence to any crime which may be of concern to Defendant Epstein.
+
+Finally, Plaintiffs' document request no. 5 seeks primarily statements for bank accounts and investment accounts. In United States v. Ghidoni, 732 F.2d 814 (1 I th Cir. 1984), the Eleventh Circuit held that bank account statements were not protected by the Fifth Amendment act-of-production doctrine:
+
+> Ghidoni argues that the directive [for bank account statements] would tend to authenticate any documents obtained from the bank. In this regard, this case is indistinguishable from Fisher, where the government was seeking records prepared by an accountant for the defendant. Because the taxpayer could not authenticate the accountant's work papers or reports by oral testimony, the Court held that the taxpayer's production of those accounts would not assist in authentication. Similarly, only the bank could authenticate the records at issue here.
+
+Id. at 818-19. Likewise Defendant Epstein should not be allowed to withhold bank account statements from discovery on Fifth Amendment grounds.
+
+Instead of evaluating the act of production with respect to each specific document request, the Magistrate Judge wielded a broad brush in denying discovery on Defendant's "financial status and history." (Order, p. 7). The Magistrate Judge notes that "as the requests at issue would require disclosure in connection with Defendant's ownership of assets and transfers of assets inside and outside the United States, such disclosure could reveal the availability to him and/or use by him of interstate facilities, which again may implicate Defendant in additional crimes." (N.) Yet it is only the act of production that could give rise to a valid assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege. It is not a basis to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege that the contents of documents show, for example, that Epstein used interstate facilities. See Hubbell 530 U.S. at 36. In any event, the Magistrate Judge's broad statement would not apply to, for example, standard financial statements, which would not be expected to identify specific assets or transfers of assets. Moreover, while as the Magistrate Judge recognizes, a party may have "justified concerns regarding waiver" of the privilege, he must nonetheless by in camera submission or otherwise advise the Court how the act of production in response to specific requests could incriminate him. See Fisher, 425 U.S. at 412. It is not at all apparent from the Magistrate Judge's Order that this was done. See Bear Stearns. Inc. v. Wyler. Inc. 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 681-82 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (rejecting assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege, noting that the defendant "does little to explain how the act of producing documents would pose a real danger of incrimination").
+
+In Hubbell, the Supreme Court considered the circumstances in which an assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege would be defeated because the existence and location of documents was a "forgone conclusion." 530 U.S. at 44-45. See also Fisher, 425 U.S. at 411. The Court in Hubbell concluded that the existence and location of documents sought by the government subpoena were not a forgone conclusion, and therefore the act of production had a testimonial aspect. 530 U.S. at 45. The facts in Hubbell are distinguishable from those here. "[l]n Hubbell, the incriminatory nature of the production of the documents sought was obvious." Bear Steams & Co.. Inc. v. Wyler, 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 683 (N.D.I11. 2002). Specifically, production of the documents at issue in Hubbell, concerning the Whitewater investigation, was itself an admission that the defendant had failed to comply with a plea agreement. Id.; Hubbell 530 U.S. at 36-44. Here, unlike Hubbell, there would seem to be no obvious testimonial aspects to the Defendant's production of net worth documents, and, indeed, it is difficult to understand how production of such things as financial statements and real property appraisals could, in these cases, be both testimonial and incriminating. As noted by the Court in Fisher, these questions must be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case:
+
+> [T]he more difficult issues are whether the tacit averments of the taxpayer are both "testimonial" and "incriminating" for purposes of applying the Fifth Amendment. These questions perhaps do no lend themselves to categorical answers; their resolution may instead depend on the facts and circumstances of particular cases or classes thereof.
+
+Fisher 425 U.S. at 409. It does not appear from the Magistrate Judge's Order that the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, considered with respect to each request for production at issue, was sufficiently considered. Rather, the Magistrate Judge issued a decision which "categorically" denied discovery on Defendant's "financial status and history", with the sole exception of Defendant's tax returns. (Order, p. 7). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's Order is clearly erroneous and contrary to law, and should be set aside to the extent that it upholds the
+
+Defendant's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege to document request nos. 2-5 in their entirety.
+
+# IL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' NET WORTH INTERROGATORIES WOULD NOT PROVIDE LINK IN THE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE FOR CONVICTION OF A CRIME
+
+Assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege requires that reasonable cause exists to believe that a direct answer to a question would support criminal conviction or provide a link in the chain of evidence leading to a conviction. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951). Each specific interrogatory should be separately evaluated to determine whether an answer would provide a link in the chain of evidence. For example, interrogatory no. 1 asks the Defendant to state the fair market value of all assets in which Defendant has an ownership interest. It is not apparent from information provided to Plaintiffs that ownership of any particular asset could be a link in the chain of evidence of a crime. Indeed, it would appear that the crimes for which Epstein would have reasonable cause to fear prosecution am not property crimes, and ownership of assets would not seem to be a link in the chain of evidence for crimes which would give Epstein concern.
+
+As another example, interrogatory no. 4 asks the Defendant to list all real property in which Defendant holds an ownership interest and interrogatory no. 7 asks the Defendant to list all cars, boats and airplanes in which he as an ownership interest. Plaintiff is not asking Defendant which properties he resided in, nor which cars or boats he used; rather, the interrogatory merely seeks ownership information for purposes of determining net worth. It would not seem that such static ownership information could give rise to a reasonable concern of being a link in the chain of evidence. Moreover, Defendant Epstein's ownership of real property, cars and an airplane are well known, particularly to criminal authorities. Information on the
+
+appraised values of these properties, which is useful for purposes of punitive damages, would seem to provide nothing to the government relating to evidence of crimes by Defendant.
+
+# Conclusion
+
+Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request an Order (i) finding that the Magistrate Judge's Order (DE 480) is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law with regard to Plaintiffs' document request nos. 2-5 and interrogatories 1-13; (ii) setting aside the Magistrate Judge's Order with regard to document request nos. 2-5 and interrogatories 1-13; (iii) directing Defendant to produce documents in response to document requests nos. 2-5 and to answer interrogatories nos. 1-11; and (iv) such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
+
+Dated: March 18, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245)
+
+ssm @sexabuseattorney.com
+
+Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980)
+
+ahorowitz @sexabuseattorney.com
+
+MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A.
+
+Attorneys for Plaintiffs
+
+18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
+
+Miami, Florida 33160
+
+Tel: (305) 931-2200
+
+Fax: (305) 931-0877
+
+# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I hereby certify that on March 18, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+/s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein
+
+# SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+
+igoldberger@agwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq.
+
+rcritton@bciclaw.com
+
+James
+
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+Isidro Manuel
+
+isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack
+
+jph@searcylaw.com U
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell
+
+KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike
+
+MPike@bciclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell
+
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits
+
+lawyerwillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg
+
+rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748840/EFTA02748840.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748840/EFTA02748840.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d3a33407bdc5219e3bd19714c3ba610ef69b0ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748840/EFTA02748840.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,642 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748840.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 11,
+ "chars": 17772,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.66,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-8' APPEAL \nPURSUANT TO S.D.FLA.MAG.R. 4 AND OBJECTIONS AS TO \nMAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER ON NET WORTH DISCOVERY",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 124.848,
+ 388.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 487.12139892578125,
+ 388.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 487.12139892578125,
+ 431.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 124.848,
+ 431.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Introduction",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 271.116,
+ 527.3100000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 341.6578674316406,
+ 527.3100000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 341.6578674316406,
+ 541.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 271.116,
+ 541.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Argument",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 277.236,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 335.11187744140625,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 335.11187744140625,
+ 86.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 277.236,
+ 86.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "I. THE ACT-OF-PRODUCTION DOCTRINE DOES \nNOT SUPPORT THE DEFENDANT'S ASSERTION OF \nTHE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE IN RESPONSE \nTO PLAINTIFFS' NET WORTH DOCUMENT REQUESTS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 153.0,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 485.1387634277344,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 485.1387634277344,
+ 155.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 153.0,
+ 155.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' NET WORTH \nINTERROGATORIES WOULD NOT PROVIDE LINK IN \nTHE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE FOR CONVICTION OF A CRIME",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 150.552,
+ 126.35999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 497.7366027832031,
+ 126.35999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 497.7366027832031,
+ 169.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 150.552,
+ 169.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Conclusion",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 274.788,
+ 126.35999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 337.39495849609375,
+ 126.35999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 337.39495849609375,
+ 141.363037109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 274.788,
+ 141.363037109375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 227.052,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 85.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 227.052,
+ 85.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST \nDOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN \nUnited States District Court, Southern District of Florida",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 156.06,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 454.7248229980469,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 454.7248229980469,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 156.06,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 70
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 73
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748840"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748851/EFTA02748851.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748851/EFTA02748851.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..00734ad767d4fb06888dba7b75489872751254ad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748851/EFTA02748851.md
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND SHORTEN EXPERT DISCLOSURES
+
+This matter came before the Court on a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Deadlines and Shorten Expert Disclosures. Having considered the Joint Motion it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED as follows:
+
+- 1. Jane Does 2-4 discovery cutoff is extended to April 30, 2010 and the parties will exchange their expert reports on or before May 14, 2010.
+- 2. Jane Does 5-7 discovery cutoff is extended to June 6, 2010 and the parties will exchanges their expert reports on or before June 6, 2010.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this AP day of Mihe cg 2010.
+
+1 - Kenneth A. Marra United States District Judge 08-CIV-80119-Marra,
+
+Related cases 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+Page 2
+
+Courtesy Copies: Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748851/EFTA02748851.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748851/EFTA02748851.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f24cc31db163be6ada4e3c83a8f4b642ab324fcb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748851/EFTA02748851.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748851.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1236,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.79,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.02499999999998,
+ 84.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.8974609375,
+ 84.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.8974609375,
+ 112.353515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.02499999999998,
+ 112.353515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME \nTO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND SHORTEN EXPERT \nDISCLOSURES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 123.61500000000001,
+ 362.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 496.47076416015625,
+ 362.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 496.47076416015625,
+ 404.1035461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 123.61500000000001,
+ 404.1035461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748851"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748853/EFTA02748853.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748853/EFTA02748853.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6f8d6855d88e9511fd391102831ef0ee5ca8d6e1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748853/EFTA02748853.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/=M
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER
+
+This matter came before the Court on Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Plaintiff, JANE DOE'S, Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Appeal (DE 485), having considered Defendant's Motion, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
+
+Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file his Reply to Plaintiff, JANE DOE'S, Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Appeal on or before March 26, 2010.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010.
+
+Kenneth A. Marra United States District Judge
+
+Courtesy Copies all counsel
+
+08-CIV-80119-Marra/
+
+Related cases 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+Page 2
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748853/EFTA02748853.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748853/EFTA02748853.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0ef9fe069e126578ee46922dd062eaecb168d18d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748853/EFTA02748853.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748853.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1119,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.82,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 74.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 415.85565185546875,
+ 74.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 415.85565185546875,
+ 102.35302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 102.35302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 284.58,
+ 376.65000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 335.2379150390625,
+ 376.65000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 335.2379150390625,
+ 391.85302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 284.58,
+ 391.85302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748853"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748855/EFTA02748855.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748855/EFTA02748855.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4735e70a84660b084fb5cc2352981a5869ac2c0f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748855/EFTA02748855.md
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRS
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+#### DEFENDANT'S AMENDED UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE'S, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL (4851
+
+Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an Extension of Time in which to Reply to Plaintiff, Jane Doe's, Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal. Defendant seeks an additional four (4) day extension until Friday, March 26, 2010 to file his Reply. As good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant states:
+
+- I. On February 4, 2010 this Court entered an Omnibus Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (DE 462).
+- 2. On February 26, 2010 Defendant filed his Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal (DE 477).
+
+3. On March 10, 2010 Plaintiff filed her Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal (DE 485).
+
+4. Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition is currently due on March 22, 2010.
+
+5. Robert D. Critton, counsel for the Defendant, is currently out of town and Michael J. Pike, counsel for the Defendant, has attended three (3) depositions in related matters this week and therefore needs a simple four (4) days extension to file Defendant's Reply.
+
+6. While this request is reasonable, counsel for the Defendant has spoken to counsel for the Plaintiff and counsel is in agreement with the requested four (4) day extension.
+
+Wherefore, the undersigned respectfully requests the relief sought herein, and for such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper.
+
+# Local Rule 7.1 Statement
+
+Counsel for the movant conferred by e-mail with counsel for the Plaintiff and Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with the requested extension.
+
+> By: /s/ Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR. Florida Bar #224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+### Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by electronic mail (e-mail) on this 19th day of March, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit@bciclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 maikeAbc1claw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+# Certificate of Service
+
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARFLA/
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ssm(g) —sexabuseattomey.com ahorowitz@sexabuseattornev.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994
+
+, Jaffe, Weissing, Fistos &I.firman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 brad®nathtoiustice.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+561-659-8300
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+[jagesq@bellsouth.net](mailto:jagesq@bellsouth.net)
+*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein*
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+Miami, FL 33130
+305 358-2800
+Fax: 305 358-2382
+[rjosefsberg@podhurst.com](mailto:rjosefsberg@podhurst.com)
+[kezell@podhurst.com](mailto:kezell@podhurst.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos.
+09-80591 and 09-80656*
+
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+801-585-5202
+801-585-6833 Fax
+[cassellp@law.utah.edu](mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu)
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+
+Isidro M. [REDACTED], Esq.
+[REDACTED] Law Firm, P.A.
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561-832-7732
+561-832-7137 F
+[isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net](mailto:isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.
+08-80469*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748855/EFTA02748855.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748855/EFTA02748855.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3aded5f3dc084005410860620d34812cc7623a4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748855/EFTA02748855.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748855.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 4766,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 4.36,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 73.71000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.99566650390625,
+ 73.71000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.99566650390625,
+ 103.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 103.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT'S AMENDED UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO \nFILE REPLY TO PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE'S, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO \nDEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR \nRULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL (4851",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 96.084,
+ 361.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 524.67041015625,
+ 361.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 524.67041015625,
+ 415.85302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 96.084,
+ 415.85302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Local Rule 7.1 Statement",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.188,
+ 457.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 378.23114013671875,
+ 457.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 378.23114013671875,
+ 472.863037109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.188,
+ 472.863037109375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 250.92000000000002,
+ 87.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 364.54791259765625,
+ 87.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 364.54791259765625,
+ 101.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 250.92000000000002,
+ 101.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 252.75599999999997,
+ 445.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 366.0479431152344,
+ 445.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 366.0479431152344,
+ 460.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 252.75599999999997,
+ 460.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 107
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748855"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748859/EFTA02748859.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748859/EFTA02748859.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e36e754ac7241a055b19165fb42c77ce6c50138f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748859/EFTA02748859.md
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRS
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## AMENDED ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND SHORTEN EXPERT DISCLOSURES
+
+This matter came before the Court on a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Deadlines and Shorten Expert Disclosures. Having considered the Joint Motion it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED as follows:
+
+- 1. Jane Does 2-4 discovery cutoff is extended to April 30, 2010 and the parties will exchange their expert reports on or before May 14, 2010.
+- 2. Jane Does 5-7 discovery cutoff is extended to May 28, 2010 and the parties will exchanges their expert reports on or before June 7, 2010.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010.
+
+Kenneth A. Marra United States District Judge 08-CIV-80119-Marra/M
+
+Related cases 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+Page 2
+
+Courtesy Copies: Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748859/EFTA02748859.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748859/EFTA02748859.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6dd4ca2a57a667e9de1e12780aafe56059dcf257
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748859/EFTA02748859.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748859.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1241,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.78,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 77.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.65200000000004,
+ 77.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.65200000000004,
+ 104.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 104.49
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "AMENDED ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME \nTO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND SHORTEN EXPERT \nDISCLOSURES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 107.1,
+ 364.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.2439999999999,
+ 364.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.2439999999999,
+ 406.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 107.1,
+ 406.62
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 203
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748859"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748861/EFTA02748861.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748861/EFTA02748861.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa989c9012c28469500906d0927a0181495e6803
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748861/EFTA02748861.md
@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/J.=
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## AMENDED JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND SHORTEN EXPERT DISCLOSURES
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, and Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through their undersigned attorneys respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time to complete discovery deadlines, and as good cause in support of granting the motion, states as follows:
+
+- 1. These cases are currently set on a two week trial docket commencing on September 27, 2010.
+- 2. The majority of the depositions of Plaintiffs have been taken but the majority have not been completed. A number of witness depositions have yet to occur. In fact, Defendant has over thirty (30) depositions that he believes are needed to complete discovery, dates for which Defendant's counsel requested from Plaintiffs' counsel on March 9, 2010. Plaintiffs
+
+counsel is working on the scheduling of these depositions. Additionally, the deposition of Jeffrey Epstein has not been completed, and Plaintiffs have additional depositions to take, some of which are out of state.
+
+3. The scheduling of depositions in this matter has become much more difficult since the case was consolidated on May 14, 2009, due to the number of attorneys involved and the fact that witnesses, plaintiffs and the defendant may only be deposed once. (See Order Consolidating Cases for Purpose of Discovery and Procedural Motions That Relate to Multiple Cases). Additionally, many of the witnesses retained their own counsel, and the depositions need to be coordinated with those attorneys' schedules.
+
+5. Due to the fact that depositions are still being scheduled, both Plaintiffs and Defendant are in agreement with extending the discovery cutoff in Jane Does 2-4 an additional two (2) weeks from April 12, 2010, making the new discovery cutoff date April 30, 2010 and extending the discovery cutoff in Jane Does 5-7 to May 28, 2010.
+
+6. Further, the current scheduling order requires expert reports to be disclosed on July 1, 2010. The parties have agreed to disclose the expert reports in Jane Does 2-4 on May 14, 2010 and in Jane Does 5-7 on June 7, 2010.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendant request that this Court enter an order granting the Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Deadline and Shorten Expert Disclosures.
+
+# CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1
+
+Counsel for the parties conferred via e-mail and are in agreement with moving the above dates.
+
+By: /s/ Robert D. Critton
+ROBERT D. CRITTON, ESQ.
+Florida Bar # 224162
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+Florida Bar #617296
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 19th day of March, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Robert D. Critton
+ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
+Florida Bar No. 224162
+rcrit@bclclaw.com
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+Florida Bar #617296
+mpike@bclclaw.com
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
+303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561/842-2820 Phone
+561/515-3148 Fax
+*(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)*
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+**Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein**
+**Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/[REDACTED]**
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+Suite 2218
+Miami, FL 33160
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+[ssm@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ssm@sexabuseattorney.com)
+[ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs*
+*In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994*
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+561-659-8300
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+[jagesq@bellsouth.net](mailto:jagesq@bellsouth.net)
+
+*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein*
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+Miami, FL 33130
+305 358-2800
+Fax: 305 358-2382
+[rjosefsberg@podhurst.com](mailto:rjosefsberg@podhurst.com)
+[kezell@podhurst.com](mailto:kezell@podhurst.com)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656*
+
+[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman, PL
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+[brad@pathtojustice.com](mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893*
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+*Pro Hac Vice*
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+801-585-5202
+801-585-6833 Fax
+[cassellp@law.utah.edu](mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu)
+
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+Isidro M. [REDACTED], Esq.
+[REDACTED] Law Firm, P.A.
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561-832-7732
+561-832-7137 F
+
+[isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net](mailto:isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748861/EFTA02748861.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748861/EFTA02748861.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f3d505f25ad759f90a1ac002459a732613fc611a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748861/EFTA02748861.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,318 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748861.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 5,
+ "chars": 5574,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 8.8,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 87.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 415.49566650390625,
+ 87.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 415.49566650390625,
+ 117.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 117.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "AMENDED JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME \nTO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND SHORTEN EXPERT DISCLOSURES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 73.44,
+ 375.84000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.7496948242188,
+ 375.84000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.7496948242188,
+ 407.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 73.44,
+ 407.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 162.792,
+ 630.1800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 495.5267333984375,
+ 630.1800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 495.5267333984375,
+ 646.8530120849609
+ ],
+ [
+ 162.792,
+ 646.8530120849609
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 251.53199999999998,
+ 244.61999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 363.52799999999996,
+ 244.61999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 363.52799999999996,
+ 258.39
+ ],
+ [
+ 251.53199999999998,
+ 258.39
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/[REDACTED]",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 190.94400000000002,
+ 105.30000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.0559999999999,
+ 105.30000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.0559999999999,
+ 146.60999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 190.94400000000002,
+ 146.60999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 43
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748861"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748866/EFTA02748866.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748866/EFTA02748866.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..196a897ad21708e0dfcd6686d2895c41ed765290
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748866/EFTA02748866.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAMMI
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+I
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## AMENDED ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND SHORTEN EXPERT DISCLOSURES
+
+This matter came before the Court on a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to EDS ifq(d. Complete Discovery Deadlines and Shorten Expert Disclosure0 Having considered the Joint Motion it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED as follows:
+
+- 1. Jane Does 2-4 discovery cutoff is extended to April 30, 2010 and the parties will exchange their expert reports on or before May 14, 2010.
+- 2. Jane Does 5-7 discovery cutoff is extended to May 28, 2010 and the parties will exchanges their expert reports on or before June 7, 2010.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this a\_day of /4 0.rC In , 2010.
+
+It Kenneth A. Marra United States District Judge 08-CIV-80119-Maua/M
+
+Related cases 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+Page 2
+
+Courtesy Copies: Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748866/EFTA02748866.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748866/EFTA02748866.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..317ee77a713c809cc83bb6d12bb89147c7a08044
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748866/EFTA02748866.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748866.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1263,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.8,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 204.18,
+ 89.91
+ ],
+ [
+ 411.64794921875,
+ 89.91
+ ],
+ [
+ 411.64794921875,
+ 119.9730224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 204.18,
+ 119.9730224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "AMENDED ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME \nTO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND SHORTEN EXPERT \nDISCLOSURES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 112.545,
+ 366.93
+ ],
+ [
+ 506.6261291503906,
+ 366.93
+ ],
+ [
+ 506.6261291503906,
+ 411.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 112.545,
+ 411.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748866"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748868/EFTA02748868.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748868/EFTA02748868.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc9e9354a36bfa65e3f67797a5a77e95b2236b62
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748868/EFTA02748868.md
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOIINSON
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993,08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 FILED by D C MAR 2 4 2010 STEVEN M. LARIMORE CLERK U.S. DIST. CT. S.D. OF nA. • W.P.B.
+
+## ORDER
+
+This matter came before the Court on Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Plaintiff, JANE DOE'S, Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Appeal (DE 485), having considered Defendant's Motion, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
+
+Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file his Reply to Plaintiff, JANE DOE'S, Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Appeal on or before March 26, 2010.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this Zday of riara..\_, 2010.
+
+Courtesy Copies all counsel
+
+o Ann On--- Yannoth A biAittlef P. United States District-Judge iniVa-6176-
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748868/EFTA02748868.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748868/EFTA02748868.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2bf5dcb8fb520f974d71b2d630ab1c313b0397e5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748868/EFTA02748868.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748868.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 1090,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.96,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 202.95000000000002,
+ 88.28999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 404.4739074707031,
+ 88.28999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 404.4739074707031,
+ 114.9735107421875
+ ],
+ [
+ 202.95000000000002,
+ 114.9735107421875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 280.44,
+ 377.46000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 326.7838439941406,
+ 377.46000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 326.7838439941406,
+ 390.9735412597656
+ ],
+ [
+ 280.44,
+ 390.9735412597656
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 82
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748868"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748869/EFTA02748869.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748869/EFTA02748869.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1a3d6a4f2a3931791a107c4598e31690516bb661
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748869/EFTA02748869.md
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CTV-80119-M\_ARIZABIM
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER
+
+This matter came before the Court on Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Plaintiff, JANE DOE'S, Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Appeal (DE tic, having considered Defendant's Motion, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
+
+Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file his Reply to Plaintiff, JANE DOE'S, Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Appeal on or before March 26, 2010.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this Ziday of , 2010.
+
+cyk- •=61,\A-st, United States Distract Judge
+
+Courtesy Copies all counsel
+
+/7/AG41.7:611,
+
+08-CIV-80119-Ma
+
+09-80469, Related cases 09-80591, 08-801.380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 Page 2
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748869/EFTA02748869.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748869/EFTA02748869.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb85a1adcca6022d5b9c7bd6435f8468b5fb950e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748869/EFTA02748869.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748869.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1139,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.97,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 208.485,
+ 87.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 406.767333984375,
+ 87.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 406.767333984375,
+ 116.63999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 208.485,
+ 116.63999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 279.82500000000005,
+ 378.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 324.8477783203125,
+ 378.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 324.8477783203125,
+ 391.23
+ ],
+ [
+ 279.82500000000005,
+ 391.23
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 194
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748869"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748871/EFTA02748871.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748871/EFTA02748871.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9df2736c4f13dc8ab97d95db107198548ebfb75b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748871/EFTA02748871.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION IN DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REOUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4.2010 (DE 462). WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM
+
+This matter came before the Court on Defendant's, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Motion to Exceed Page Limitation in his Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462) with Incorporated Objections and Memorandum. Having considered Defendant's motion to exceed page limitation, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
+
+Defendant's motion is GRANTED. Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462) with Incorporated Objections and Memorandum may exceed 10 pages.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010.
+
+Kenneth A. Marra United States District Judge
+
+Courtesy Copies: Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748871/EFTA02748871.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748871/EFTA02748871.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ab789e7b6b418e08a0e91aedbc4a08823b30861e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748871/EFTA02748871.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748871.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1513,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.7,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 418.15960693359375,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 418.15960693359375,
+ 105.86248779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 105.86248779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED \nPAGE LIMITATION IN DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE \nIN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION \nAND/OR REOUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF \nTHE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4.2010 (DE 462). WITH \nINCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 94.86,
+ 363.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.100830078125,
+ 363.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.100830078125,
+ 450.86248779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 94.86,
+ 450.86248779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748871"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748873/EFTA02748873.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748873/EFTA02748873.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ad1ce99f192007465d63f89994f49ccc35d6f84c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748873/EFTA02748873.md
@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAI.
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves to exceed the page limitation of 10 pages in his Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462). In support of his motion, Defendant states:
+
+- 1. In order to present Defendant's Reply in an organized and understandable manner, the 10 page limitation is required to be exceeded.
+- 2. The undersigned has contacted Plaintiff Jane Doe and there is no objection to the request to exceed the 10 page limitation.
+
+WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant Defendant's motion, and enter an order allowing the Reply to exceed the maximum limit of 10 pages.
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+Florida Bar #617296
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 26th day of March, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike
+ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
+Florida Bar No. 224162
+rcrit@bclclaw.com
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+Florida Bar #617296
+mpike@bclclaw.com
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER &
+COLEMAN
+515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561/842-2820 Phone
+561/515-3148 Fax
+*(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)*
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+**Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein**
+**Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON**
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+Suite 2218
+Miami, FL 33160
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+[ssm@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ssm@sexabuseattorney.com)
+[ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs*
+*In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,*
+*08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993,*
+*08-80994*
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+561-659-8300
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+[jagesq@bellsouth.net](mailto:jagesq@bellsouth.net)
+
+*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein*
+
+[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED] Fistos
+& Lehrman, PL
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+[brad@pathtojustice.com](mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.*
+*08-80893*
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+*Pro Hac Vice*
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+801-585-5202
+801-585-6833 Fax
+[cassellp@law.utah.edu](mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu)
+
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+
+Isidro M. [REDACTED] Esq.
+[REDACTED] Law Firm, P.A.
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561-832-7732
+561-832-7137 F
+[isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net](mailto:isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.*
+*08-80469*
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+Miami, FL 33130
+305 358-2800
+Fax: 305 358-2382
+[rjosefsberg@podhurst.com](mailto:rjosefsberg@podhurst.com)
+[kezell@podhurst.com](mailto:kezell@podhurst.com)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748873/EFTA02748873.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748873/EFTA02748873.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0fff788e0fba9a905e633c2657d75d37663b45f1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748873/EFTA02748873.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,253 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748873.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 3944,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 8.85,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 417.7664489746094,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 417.7664489746094,
+ 105.35302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 105.35302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION IN \nREPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO \nDEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 108.32399999999998,
+ 363.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.2783813476562,
+ 363.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.2783813476562,
+ 408.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 108.32399999999998,
+ 408.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 251.53199999999998,
+ 173.34
+ ],
+ [
+ 363.52799999999996,
+ 173.34
+ ],
+ [
+ 363.52799999999996,
+ 186.3
+ ],
+ [
+ 251.53199999999998,
+ 186.3
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 191.55599999999998,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 422.892,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 422.892,
+ 115.83
+ ],
+ [
+ 191.55599999999998,
+ 115.83
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748873"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748877/EFTA02748877.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748877/EFTA02748877.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd280581fca2cb8d209ac406e5fc282dfef7781b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748877/EFTA02748877.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+## IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 50-2008-CA-028051 XXXX MB AB
+
+L.M.,
+
+Vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+
+
+Defendant.
+
+VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
+
+,)2):CE: February 17, 2010
+
+U.S. Legal Support (561) 835-0220 EXHIBIT
+
+MR. The 87-page Palm Beach Police Department incident report where there are numerous underage females describing their interaction with Mr. Epstein at his house. I'm reading specifically from page 41 related to A.H., who was one of the victims he pled guilty to.
+
+MR. PIKE: Is that the same document that you're seeking production of, in this same exact case?
+
+MR. -: I don't know what you're talking about. This is something from the State Attorney's file.
+
+MR. PIKE: Okay. Sorry. What's the question?
+
+Q Are you aware of that allegation? What i just read to you.
+
+A I would like to answer that question, however, today my attorneys have advised me I must assert my Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment :ind Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. r:onstitution.
+
+Q Assuming your attorneys have advised you hut because of Res Judicata, double jeopardy, you
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748877/EFTA02748877.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748877/EFTA02748877.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb34542e98790c07a55e8875f3578ea88142d13d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748877/EFTA02748877.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748877.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1223,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.77,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE \nFIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR \nPALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 168.3,
+ 84.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 451.24151611328125,
+ 84.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 451.24151611328125,
+ 125.55000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 168.3,
+ 125.55000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 85
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 60
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748877"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748877/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748877/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e155760a4de298f776535f5446e3039a9d77fcb0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748877/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:d7961010d7283911c8eb1c8fe73c4ed668a9113f5aae06426e6ec06d661f963d
+size 2524
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748879/EFTA02748879.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748879/EFTA02748879.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8766179a42059eb08e8b813db803b5b9e6c86b3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748879/EFTA02748879.md
@@ -0,0 +1,253 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.,
+
+Defendants.
+
+DEPOSITION OF
+
+Volume
+
+Pages 1 through 138
+
+Videotaped
+
+Monday, March 15, 2010
+
+10:13 a.m. - 12:42 p.m.
+
+U.S. Legal Support
+
+515 East Las Olas Boulevard, 3rd. Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+
+> Stenographically Reported By: Janet L. McKinney, RPR, FPR, CLR
+
+> Registered Professional Reporter
+
+Florida Professional Reporter
+
+Certified LiveNote Reporter
+
+U.S. Legal Support (954) 463-2933
+
+54
+
+1 A. [REDACTED]
+
+2 Q. [REDACTED]
+
+3 [REDACTED]
+
+4 A. [REDACTED]
+
+5 MR. PIKE: [REDACTED]
+
+6 [REDACTED]
+
+7 [REDACTED]
+
+8 [REDACTED]
+
+9 [REDACTED]
+
+10 [REDACTED]
+
+11 MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+12 [REDACTED]
+
+13 [REDACTED]
+
+14 [REDACTED]
+
+15 MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+16 [REDACTED]
+
+17 [REDACTED]
+
+18 [REDACTED]
+
+19 [REDACTED]
+
+20 MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+21 [REDACTED]
+
+22 [REDACTED]
+
+23 [REDACTED]
+
+24 [REDACTED]
+
+25 MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+56
+
+1 [REDACTED]
+
+2 A. [REDACTED]
+
+3 Q. [REDACTED]
+
+4 [REDACTED]
+
+5 A. [REDACTED]
+
+6 Q. [REDACTED]
+
+7 [REDACTED]
+
+8 [REDACTED]
+
+9 [REDACTED]
+
+10 A. [REDACTED]
+
+11 [REDACTED]
+
+12 [REDACTED]
+
+13 [REDACTED]
+
+14 [REDACTED]
+
+15 Q. Did you talk with [REDACTED] about the criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and others?
+
+16 A. I refuse to answer.
+
+17 Q. Well, at some point in time what's been marked as Defense Exhibit 1, you received a Grand Jury investigation target letter, correct?
+
+18 A. I refuse to answer.
+
+19 Q. Well, we have it right here. I'm familiar with it. I know you got the letter and I know that, you know, the substance of it you're not going to tell me about. But this letter is dated August 31st, 2007,
+
+20 [REDACTED]
+
+21 [REDACTED]
+
+22 [REDACTED]
+
+23 [REDACTED]
+
+24 [REDACTED]
+
+25 [REDACTED]
+
+57
+
+1 [REDACTED]
+
+2 [REDACTED]
+
+3 [REDACTED]
+
+4 MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+5 [REDACTED]
+
+6 [REDACTED]
+
+7 [REDACTED]
+
+8 [REDACTED]
+
+9 [REDACTED]
+
+10 A. [REDACTED]
+
+11 Q. [REDACTED]
+
+12 A. [REDACTED]
+
+13 [REDACTED]
+
+14 [REDACTED]
+
+15 [REDACTED]
+
+16 [REDACTED]
+
+17 [REDACTED]
+
+18 [REDACTED]
+
+19 [REDACTED]
+
+20 [REDACTED]
+
+21 [REDACTED]
+
+22 [REDACTED]
+
+23 [REDACTED]
+
+24 [REDACTED]
+
+25 [REDACTED]
+
+57
+
+1 the search warrant was executed on his home back in October of 2005. So during those two years leading up to this target letter who did you talk to?
+
+2 [REDACTED]
+
+3 A. I refuse to answer.
+
+4 [REDACTED]
+
+5 [REDACTED]
+
+6 [REDACTED]
+
+7 [REDACTED]
+
+8 [REDACTED]
+
+9 [REDACTED]
+
+10 [REDACTED]
+
+11 [REDACTED]
+
+12 [REDACTED]
+
+13 [REDACTED]
+
+14 [REDACTED]
+
+15 [REDACTED]
+
+16 [REDACTED]
+
+17 [REDACTED]
+
+18 [REDACTED]
+
+19 [REDACTED]
+
+20 [REDACTED]
+
+21 [REDACTED]
+
+22 [REDACTED]
+
+23 [REDACTED]
+
+24 [REDACTED]
+
+25 [REDACTED]
+
+66 68 1 for 4:30 pa." 2 Do you remember leaving that message? 3 A. I refuse to =Met. 4 Q. Aod this is — MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+ Q. There's another message here from 9/I 0/05, saint day later in the day, 10 p.m. saying "Mb will be at 11. Do you want me to cancel a"
+
+1 Do you know what that message means? 2 MR. PIKE: Form. 3 A. I refuse to answer. 4 Q. What is this? 5 There's another message from 9/1//05 saying "1 6 got a ear for," and then the name is blotted out. The 7 State Attorney's Office blotted the names of minors out 8 sometimes in their file. So do you — do you know — 9 can you fill in that blank? 10 A. I refuse to answer. 11 Q. Do you know if ibis was the car that he rented 1.2 for Jane Doe 4? 13 A. I refuse to answer. 14 Q. MI right. Or the car that he rented for All? 15 A. I refuse to answer. 16 MR. PIKE: Form. 24 . 9/3/2005. Message fromeMesaying "I left 25 message for le to confirm for I I a.m, and MSS
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748879/EFTA02748879.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748879/EFTA02748879.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..efe6874b4f5aabc53f45b1e19a95b49c7ea2df88
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748879/EFTA02748879.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748879.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 3608,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 8.4,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 58.31999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 506.6761474609375,
+ 58.31999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 506.6761474609375,
+ 90.51104736328125
+ ],
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 90.51104736328125
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 119
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 309
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 83
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 217
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 107
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748879"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748882/EFTA02748882.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748882/EFTA02748882.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d45299b0b2ad3f6e1b2b1fcbd83038ecc6feea9e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748882/EFTA02748882.md
@@ -0,0 +1,285 @@
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA [REDACTED]
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+Plaintiff,
+
+-vs-
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+EXCERPT OF DEPOSITION OF
+OFFICER [REDACTED] RECAREY
+Friday, March 19, 2010
+9:37 - 5:12 p.m.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1500
+West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+
+Reported By:
+Cynthia [REDACTED], RPR, FPR
+Notary Public, State of Florida
+Prose Court Reporting
+Job No.: Excerpt
+
+- 1 Appearances continued...
+- 2 On behalf of the Plaintiffs:
+- 3 [REDACTED], ESQUIRE
+ [REDACTED], ELKINS & BOEHRINGER
+- 4 224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900
+ West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+ Phone: 561.832.8033
+- 5
+- 6
+- 7 On behalf of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein:
+- 8 MICHAEL PIKE, ESQUIRE
+ BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP
+ 303 Banyan Boulevard
+ Suite 400
+ West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+ Phone: 561.842.2820
+- 10
+- 11
+- 12 and
+- 13 On behalf of the Defendant:
+- 14 JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE
+ ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A.
+ 250 Australian Avenue South
+ Suite 1400
+ West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5012
+ Phone: 561.659.8300
+- 15
+- 16
+- 17
+- 18 On behalf of the Defendant:
+- 19 MILTON WEINBERG, ESQUIRE
+- 20
+- 21
+- 22
+- 23
+- 24
+- 25
+
+- 1 APPEARANCES:
+- 2 On behalf of the Plaintiffs, B.B., C.L.:
+- 3 SPENCER T. KUVIN, ESQUIRE
+ LEOPOLD KUVIN
+ 2925 PGA Boulevard
+ Suite 200
+ Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
+ Phone: 561.515.1400
+- 6
+- 7 On behalf of the Plaintiffs, L.M., E.W. and
+ Jane Doe:
+- 8
+- 9 [REDACTED], J. [REDACTED], ESQUIRE
+ [REDACTED], JAFFE, WEISSING, [REDACTED]
+- 10 FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+ 425 North Andrews Avenue
+ Suite 2
+ Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+ Phone: 954.524.2820
+- 12
+- 13 On behalf of Jane Does 1 through 8:
+- 14 JESSICA ARBOUR, ESQUIRE
+ MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A.
+ 18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+ Suite 2218
+ Miami, Florida 33160
+ Phone: 305.931.2200
+ E-mail: Ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
+- 17
+- 18 On behalf of the Plaintiffs: Jane Does 101, 102 and
+ {{103:
+- 19
+- 20 KATHERINE W. EZELL, ESQUIRE
+ PODHURST ORSECK
+ 25 West Flagler Street
+ Suite 800
+ Miami, Florida 33130
+ Phone: 305.358.2382
+ (Via telephone)
+- 21
+- 22 Miami, Florida 33130
+ Phone: 305.358.2382
+ (Via telephone)
+- 23
+- 24
+- 25
+
+- 1 Appearances continued...
+- 2 On behalf of the Witness:
+- 3 JOANNE M. [REDACTED], ESQUIRE
+ [REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED] & STUBBS, P.A.
+- 4 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100
+ West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+ Phone:
+- 5
+- 6
+- 7 ---
+- 8 INDEX VOLUME I
+- 9
+- 10
+- 11 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
+- 12 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS
+- 13 OFFICER [REDACTED] RECAREY
+ BY MR. KUVIN 5
+- 14
+- 15
+- 16
+- 17
+- 18
+- 19
+- 20
+- 21
+- 22
+- 23
+- 24
+- 25
+
+7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 6 1 A. It appears she met with members of the B.S.F. 2 unit, Burglary Strike Force is what it was for the 3 purpose of conducting surveillance at 358 El Brillo. 4 Q. Okay, now this surveillance, was this kept 5 by the Department? 6 A. Correct. Q. Still held by the department? A. Not 100 percent certain on that. It might have e over to the FBI. \* \* BY MR. KUVIN: Q. That was pursuant to -- well, why don't you tell us. Why, why was all of that turned over to the FBI? Why was your entire investigative file given to them, if you know? MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: They came with a grand jury subpoena requesting all evidence, all working
+
+9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 5 1 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 2 BY MR. KUVIN: 3 Q. Just so we're clarify for the record, 4 detective, as a detective for the department, do you 5 regularly rely upon reports that are taken down by 6 other detectives in the department? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you regularly trust other officers to take down certain reports with respect to an investigation? A. Correct. Q. And is that part the regular practice of an investigating detective, in other words to refer to reports that are taken down by other officers during the, during an investigation? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Just so we're clear, when she referenced his wee-wee was she referring to his penis? MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. Okay. And what were the dates of the surveillance?
+
+2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 7 1 files, all, any notes, any, anything pertaining to the investigation. Q. And that would have included all the audio taped statements that you took? A. Correct. \* \* \* \* \* BY MR. KUVIN: t MR. KUVIN: If we go down to Page 40 in your report, first let me back up. When you meet with her do you take notes? THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR KUVIN: Q. Okay. With respect to this particular
+
+2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 8 1 transcript, was this taken by the FBI when they took all the evidence? A. Yes. MR. PIKE: Form BY MR KUVIN: BY m.. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. Okay. So the chain of custody which we have marked as Exhibit 5 shows that all the evidence you had in this case was given over to the FBI; is
+
+- 1
+- 2
+- 3
+- 4
+- 5
+- 6
+- 7
+- 8
+- 9
+- 10
+- 11
+- 12
+- 13
+- 14
+- 15
+- 16
+- 17
+- 18
+- 19
+- 20
+- 21
+- 22
+- 23
+- 24
+- 25
+
+that correct?
+
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+
+BY MR. KUVIN:
+
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+THE WITNESS: I do not know.
+
+\*\*\*\*\*
+
+BY MR. KUVIN:
+
+Q. And what was done with them when these
+were taken from his home? In other words once they
+were taken into custody, what did you all do with
+them?
+
+A. We reviewed them for evidentiary purposes.
+
+- 1
+- 2
+- 3
+- 4
+- 5
+- 6
+- 7
+- 8
+- 9
+- 10
+- 11
+- 12
+- 13
+- 14
+- 15
+- 16
+- 17
+- 18
+- 19
+- 20
+- 21
+- 22
+- 23
+- 24
+- 25
+
+Q. Okay.
+
+A. Provided the State Attorney's office with a
+copy, obviously, with the filing packet for the arrest
+warrants, and eventually turned over to the FBI.
+
+\*\*\*\*\*
+
+BY MR. EDWARDS:
+
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+
+\*\*\*\*\*
+
+CERTIFICATE OF OATH
+STATE OF FLORIDA
+COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
+
+I, the undersigned authority, certify that
+OFFICER RECAREY personally appeared before me
+and was duly sworn.
+
+Dated this 24th day of March, 2010.
+
+*Cynthia S. Hopkins* [Stamp of Cynthia S. Hopkins]
+
+Cynthia [REDACTED], RPR, FPR
+Notary Public - State of Florida
+My Commission Expires: February 25, 2011
+My Commission No.: DD 643788
+
+Job #excerpt
+
+CERTIFICATE
+STATE OF FLORIDA
+COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
+
+I, Cynthia [REDACTED] Register Professional Reporter, Florida Professional Reporter, and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that the aforementioned witness was by me first duly sworn to testify the whole truth; that I was authorized to and did report said deposition in stenotype; and that the foregoing pages numbered \_\_\_ to \_\_\_, inclusive, are a true and correct transcription of my shorthand notes of said deposition.
+
+I further certify that said deposition was taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth and that the taking of said deposition was commenced and completed as hereinabove set out.
+
+I further certify that I am not attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel of party connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.
+
+The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or direction of the certifying reporter.
+
+Dated this 24th day of March, 2010.
+
+*Cynthia S. Hopkins* [Stamp of Cynthia S. Hopkins]
+Cynthia [REDACTED], RPR, FPR
+Job #excerpt
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748882/EFTA02748882.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748882/EFTA02748882.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2442bfed88a2ce4018c3577ef3a6830db8656e21
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748882/EFTA02748882.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748882.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 7743,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 129.07,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 104.03999999999999,
+ 63.17999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 242.964,
+ 63.17999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 242.964,
+ 84.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 104.03999999999999,
+ 84.24
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF OATH STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 348.84,
+ 63.17999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 500.0039999999999,
+ 63.17999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 500.0039999999999,
+ 96.38999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 348.84,
+ 96.38999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 348.84,
+ 393.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 449.20799999999997,
+ 393.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 449.20799999999997,
+ 421.20000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 348.84,
+ 421.20000000000005
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 272
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 127
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 3
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 340
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 162
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748882"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748885/EFTA02748885.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748885/EFTA02748885.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ff7a52c983ed83cf300ef8883e38fa2bf73fed18
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748885/EFTA02748885.md
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+## AFFIDAVIT OF JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
+
+BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority personally appeared having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says:
+
+1. I, Jack A. Goldberger, have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida since 1978. I am a partner with the law firm of Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., located at One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400, 250 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401.
+
+2. My practice includes and specializes in the defense of criminal matters. I am board certified in criminal law. I have been and currently am the criminal defense attorney for JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
+
+3. With regard to . the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office file concerning Jeffrey Epstein, after I filed My Demand for Discovery, I personally hand selected documents from that file and, therefore, same are my work product. The Palm Beach State Attorney's Office did not produce any evidence or the like directly to me. Again, the information was personally selected by me and does not constitute the entire file. Therefore, the information is highly protected, opinion, work-product.
+
+FURTHER THE AFFIANT S YET itiAUG T.
+
+ack A. Goldberger, Esq.
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA
+COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
+
+I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above named person: \_\_\_\_\_, and that an oath was/was not taken.
+
+WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this Oct day of February, 2010.
+
+(SEAL)
+
+
+
+Sheryl L. Mahony
+PRINT NAME: July 7 Mahony
+NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA
+COMMISSION NO.: 00519867
+ENTY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 5/28/10
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748885/EFTA02748885.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748885/EFTA02748885.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b1a6a81de3664ad8ce5caab356727b034731331
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748885/EFTA02748885.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748885.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 2056,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 4.01,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "AFFIDAVIT OF JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 166.46400000000003,
+ 87.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 446.0958557128906,
+ 87.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 446.0958557128906,
+ 102.42352294921875
+ ],
+ [
+ 166.46400000000003,
+ 102.42352294921875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 97.30799999999999,
+ 141.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.8,
+ 141.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.8,
+ 168.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 97.30799999999999,
+ 168.48
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748885"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748885/_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748885/_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9b10605029ed142dcd52830e162e7b892ee62455
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748885/_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:299a5c6f6bb6821ffab084988c8fde2011d6988a7d895ac3b54811dd80ffcb3e
+size 17548
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748887/EFTA02748887.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748887/EFTA02748887.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83ffc11037e07ddf74caea460514c618e5f39219
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748887/EFTA02748887.md
@@ -0,0 +1,328 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/
+
+/
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+/
+
+#### DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REOUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL, WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
+
+Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Reply To Plaintiff's Response To Defendant's Motion For Reconsideration And/Or Request For Rule 4 Review And Appeal, With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law.' In support, Epstein states:
+
+## I. The Requests For Production, Argument And Memorandum Of Law
+
+### a. Request Number 7, 9 and 10
+
+#### (i) Plaintiff Limited the Scope of the Requests In Her Reply
+
+Plaintiff is not only chameleon like in her Response in Opposition to the Motion For Reconsideration And/Or Rule 4 Appeal ("Response to the Rule 4 Appeal") but her arguments simply parrot back the Magistrate's Order at DE 462 without addressing the substantive arguments made by Epstein.
+
+ x27; Epstein reincorporates his arguments set out in his initial Rule 4 Appeal.
+
+Page No. 2
+
+First, Plaintiff's arguments in the Response to the Rule 4 Appeal change color as her covert strategy seems to fade. For instance, it was Plaintiff in her Reply to the Response in Opposition to her Motion to Compel (the "Reply to the Motion to Compel")(DE 354, p.3) that further defined or limited for the court exactly what Plaintiff expected to receive in response to request numbers 7, 9 and 10. Plaintiff stated in no uncertain terms that "[t]hese requests simply seek information that the federal government gave to Epstein. ..." DE 354, p.3.
+
+Before this specious limitation was made by Plaintiff, Epstein argued in his response in opposition (DE 339, p.7-8) that these requests are the same type requests the court found subject to the Fifth Amendment. (DE 464) With the limitation made by Plaintiff and her counsel in the Reply, the court ruled "[t]hat the earlier requests referenced by Epstein were significantly broader than the narrow requests at issue here, including for example, a request for all documents 'relating to' the federal non—prosecution agreement, and all documents 'relating to' either the federal or state criminal investigations. These requests would have required Epstein to pick and choose which documents were responsive and in this way force Epstein to use to effectively make `use of the content his mind,' an action that would undeniably implicate the Fifth Amendment." (DE 462, p.9) Clearly the instant requests (as Plaintiff now defines them) are exactly the same type of broad requests this court has already ruled upon. See Response in Opposition (DE 339) Had the Plaintiff not limited the scope of the requests in her Reply (DE 354, p.3), the court would not have labeled these requests as "narrow" because these requests now seek all information related to the federal non—prosecution agreement and all documents relating to either the federal or state criminal investigations, which clearly require Epstein to effectively make use of the content his mind to determine what is and what is not responsive to these broad requests. Simply put, Plaintiff is flip-flopping her arguments.
+
+Page No. 3
+
+As a result of the limitation made by Plaintiff in her Reply and as a result of this court's Order (DE 462), Epstein responded - "[a]s to Request Number 7, Epstein and his attorneys do not have any "discovery information" provided to them by the federal government and [a]s to Request Number 9, Epstein has not been given any evidentiary materials or evidentiary documents by the federal government." (DE 477) Certainly, these responses were not intended to "gild the lily" as Plaintiff contends. The responses were made based upon Plaintiff's limitation in what she sought from Epstein and because this court entered an Order based upon that limitation. Had the limitation not been made, neither this court nor Epstein would have been misled down this primrose path.
+
+Nonetheless, Plaintiff now seeks to obtain the full breadth of information sought under request numbers 7, 9 and 10. However, that argument shall meet a short death in that Plaintiff herself limited the scope of the requests in her Reply and failed to timely file her own Rule 4 Appeal after the court entered its order at DE 462, which adopted Plaintiff `s limited scope of the requests (which Plaintiff now wishes to change). See S.D. Fla., Rule 4(a)(1), Mag. J. 2009. If the court made a mistake in adopting the limited scope of the requests (which it did not), Plaintiff should have timely appealed. Instead, Plaintiff now attempts to backdoor a Rule 4 Appeal in her Response In Opposition to Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal. Again, if Plaintiff believed that this court improperly interpreted her limitation of the requests set out in her reply motion, Plaintiff had the obligation to timely file an appeal, which she did not. As such, Plaintiff's requested relief in this regard should be denied.
+
+- (ii) Mr. Already Has the Information He Seeks Pursuant to this Improper Motion Practice
+
+Several depositions have occurred over the last 4 weeks wherein it appears Mr. already has the information he seeks responsive to these requests, which is likely the reason Mr.
+
+Page No. 4
+
+a has not filed any affidavits supporting the specious arguments set forth in Plaintiff's Motions. As such, there is no substance or factual representations made by Plaintiff to support her argument. Plaintiff is wasting attorney time and judicial resources in her effort to obtain what she already has in her possession. For example, at a deposition of Mr. Epstein on February 17, 2010, the following exchange occurred:
+
+> Mr. The 87-page Palm Beach Police Department incident report where there are numerous underage females describing their interaction with Mr. Epstein at his house. I'm specifically reading from page 41 related to A.H., who was one of the victims he pled guilty to.
+
+> Mr. Pike: Is that the same document that you're seeking production of, in this same exact case?
+
+> Mr. a I don't know what you're talking about. This is something from the state attorneys' file.
+
+It is clear from Mr. aresponse above (attached as Exhibit "A") that he has the information from the Palm Beach Police Department and the information from the State Attorneys' file. This begs the question — if plaintiff already has the information she seeks, why is Plaintiff wasting valuable attorney time and judicial resources to obtain what is already in hand?
+
+At the deposition of AR on March 15, 2010, the following exchange occurred:
+
+Mr. Well, at some point in time what's been marked as defense Exhibit "1", you received a grand jury investigation target letter, correct?
+
+\*\*\*
+
+Mr. There's another message from 9/11/05 saying "I got a "" ca and then the name is blotted out. The State Attorneys' Office blotted the names of minors out sometimes in their file. . ..
+
+\*\*\*
+
+Page No. 5
+
+Once again, Mr. response above (attached as Exhibit "B") establishes that he has the information from both the Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorneys' file. In fact, as argued infra, Mr. has certain information from the Palm Beach Police Department, which resulted from various alleged "trash pulls" from a residence on Palm Beach (e.g., certain notepads).
+
+Finally, at the deposition of Detective Recarey of the Palm Beach Police Department, on March 19, 2010, the following exchange occurred:
+
+Mr. Kuvin: Okay. And what were the dates of the surveillance?
+
+Witness: [Referencing his Report] It appears she met with members of the B.S.F. unit, Burglary Strike Force. . . .
+
+\*\*\*
+
+Mr. Kuvin: [Referencing the Report] If we go down to page 40 in your report, first let me back up. ...
+
+Mr. Kuvin: Okay. So the chain of custody which we have marked as Exhibit 5 shows that all the evidence you had in this case was given to the FBI.. . .
+
+\*it
+
+The undersigned was at Detective Recarey's deposition, copies of which are attached as Exhibit "C". Mr. Kuvin and Mr. had copies of various reports and also had copies of various message pads claimed to be "pulled" from Epstein's trash by the Palm Beach Police Department. It is clear from these deposition transcripts that opposing counsel has information from the Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorneys' file. See also, infra for additional argument.
+
+### (iii) Work-Product — Palm Beach State Attorneys' File
+
+Next, as to any information obtained from the State Attorney at any phase, the State Attorney has not provided anything to Epstein or his attorneys. While the State Attorneys' file
+
+Page No. 6
+
+was made available for inspection, Jack Goldberger, Epstein's criminal lawyer, went over to the State Attorneys' Office and hand selected information from the file for copying, including certain witness interviews. See Exhibit "D," Affidavit of Jack Goldberger. Accordingly, the information hand selected by Mr. Goldberger falls under the work-product doctrine as production of same would reveal Mr. Goldberger's mental impressions, thought processes and strategy relative to the defense of Epstein. =v. Florida Power & Light Company, 632 So.2d 696, 698 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1994)(even if individual documents are not work-product, "the selection process itself represents defense counsel's mental impressions and legal opinions as to how the evidence in the documents relates to the issues and the defenses in the litigation"). Id. The information simply falls under the "highly protected category of opinion work-product." Id; see also Fla.R.Civ.Pro. 1.280.
+
+Also, Counsel for Jane Does 2-8 in the Federal companion cases apparently obtained a copy of the file retained by the Palm Beach State Attorneys' Office. How did Mr. Horowitz obtain the file? Did Mr. Horowitz obtain the records by virtue of a Chapter 119 request or a Freedom of Information Act Request? Certainly, Mr. is able make such public records requests or can subpoena the requested information, neither of which would implicate the work product privilege as outlined above.
+
+Here, the standard is a showing of a need to obtain the information, and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship. Metric Engineering, Inc. v. Small, 861 So. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(To show `need,' a party must present testimony or evidence demonstrating the material requested is critical to the theory of the requestor's case, or to some significant aspect of the case); Ashemimry v. Ba Nafa, 847 So.2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In addition, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(31, does allow discovery of fact
+
+Page No. 7
+
+work product where the requesting party can show need and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means without undue hardship. Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. M, 821 So.2d 1233. 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(the showing of need and undue hardship necessary to overcome the work product immunity must include specific explanations and reasons). Again, Mr. fails to submit any affidavit or any other document meeting the above criteria.
+
+Additionally, this court should consider placing the Palm Beach State Attorney and the USAO on Notice that their investigative files are being requested. Since Plaintiff seeks information given by federal government and the state attorney to Epstein, including correspondence, Epstein reincorporates the arguments setout in his initial Rule 4 Appeal as that information is within the penumbra of the protections of Federal Rules of Evidence 408 and 410. Moreover, despite Plaintiff's contention, Federal Rule of Evidence 410 is applicable because negotiations did not end with a federal plea. Furthermore, Federal Rule of Evidence 408 is applicable given that 18 U.S.C. 2255 is quasi-civil remedy. Clearly, the information sought by Plaintiff has no evidentiary value - given that Plaintiffs have the raw materials and police reports and affidavits resulting from state investigation. Accordingly, there is a chance that the Palm Beach State Attorney and the USAO may not want to disclose their files for one reason or another.
+
+Based upon the foregoing and based upon the arguments made in Epstein initial Rule 4 Appeal, Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege as it relates to the above requests should be sustained and Plaintiff's Motion requested relief should be denied as untimely. To the extent this court overrules Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege, this court should order an in camera inspection (as requested in the Rule 4 Appeal) to determine what information, if any, is workproduct and thus subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 502.
+
+Page No. 8
+
+# b. Request Numbers 12 and 13
+
+As set forth in more detail in DE 282 and 283 (which were provided to the court in camera) and in Epstein's Rule 4 Appeal, Epstein cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to his financial history and condition without waiving his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, which includes his tax returns. An elementary review of Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to the Rule 4 Appeal (DE 485) clearly shows that the information Plaintiff seeks may provide a link in the chain of evidence and thus presents a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination in this case, in other related cases and as well in areas that could result in criminal prosecution.
+
+First, Plaintiff claims to require the tax returns to advance her theory that ". . .Epstein used his wealth and power to lure economically disadvantaged minor girls to his homes in palm Beach, New York and St.s where they were sexually assaulted." (the "First Theory")(DE 485, p.18) Second, without attaching any affidavits, Plaintiff claims that ". . .Epstein is moving all of his assets overseas in an effort to defeat collection of any judgment that Jane Doe and other plaintiffs may obtain." (DE 485, p.19)(the "Second Theory"); wee also fn. 5 therein. Third, Plaintiff claims she has limited evidence (although she does not attach same or provide it in camera) proving that Epstein is using "modeling agencies" to lure underage girls to him for sexual purposes, and that his tax returns may reveal the existence and location of such modeling agencies (the "Third Theory"). Finally, Plaintiff's Fourth theory is that the tax returns may provide a link in the chain of evidence used to establish a nexus to Epstein's alleged offenses under 18 U.S.C. 2255 (the "Fourth Theory"). Plaintiff's admissions here are fatal, and furthermore require Epstein to produce information that is tantamount to Epstein being a witness against himself or incriminating himself.
+
+Page No. 9
+
+Again, to the extent that the Court determines that the tax returns are relevant and that there is a compelling need for at least their disclosure of Epstein's wealth for punitive damage purposes, Epstein would agree to stipulate, through his attorneys, that he has a net worth of over \$50,000,000. Such a stipulation more than satisfies any necessity for the disclosure of the tax returns or any additional net worth information.
+
+# (i) Plaintiff's First Theory Is Fatal To Request Numbers 12 and 13
+
+Based upon the above admissions, it is clear that Plaintiff now seeks information that may provide a link in the chain of evidence used to prosecute Epstein. As a result, DEs 282 and 283 (in camera), other related Orders and the Order at DE 480 must be analyzed to reach the correct legal conclusion. With regard to Plaintiffs First Theory, the court must be cognizant of the allegations in the related cases regarding sexual misconduct with and abuse, exploitation, and
+
+sexual battery of alleged minors.
+
+Page No. 10
+
+---
+
+2 See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. - "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief" which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege.
+
+Page No. 11
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+Page No. 12
+
+Accordingly, it is clear that Plaintiff and her counsel seek this information not to further their civil case, but to gain information to aid in the future prosecution of Epstein in direct violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. In fact, the Mermelstein and Horowitz firm was quoted in the Palm Beach Post stating, among other things, that the book sold to undercover agents could open the door to future prosecution of Epstein. As such, Plaintiffs' counsels' intention is clear – to use the civil discovery process to attempt to further prosecute Epstein. See
+
+Page No. 13
+
+http://iessicaarbour.blogspot.com/2010/03/horowitz-discusses-vossibility-ofhtml. Accordingly, Epstein's 5th Amendment rights in this regard should be sustained.
+
+## (ii) Plaintiff's Second Theory Is Fatal To Request No. 12
+
+Plaintiff claims that ". . .Epstein is moving all of his assets overseas in an effort to defeat collection of any judgment that Jane Doe and other plaintiffs may obtain" and, as a result, his tax returns may help to provide such affirmative evidence. (DE 485, p.19).
+
+As the court previously ruled, "[a]part from Defendant's justified concerns regarding waiver, are the very real concerns that by forcing Defendant to respond to the subject discovery requests regarding his financial status and history, the Court risks providing the government with a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict Defendant of a crime. The potential for providing such a `link' is high when one considers that by forcing Defendant to respond, he will be implicitly communicating statements of fact, authenticating documents and testifying to their location, as well as providing clues as to the identity and location of witnesses that by such disclosure may serve to further a criminal investigation against him." (DE 480) Further, the instant requests here would require disclosure in connection with Defendant's ownership of assets and transfers of assets inside and outside the United States, such disclosure could reveal the availability to him and/or use by him of interstate facilities, which again may implicate Defendant in additional crimes. See also DE480 for the same reasoning. In short, like the requests outline in DE 480, the requests here ". . . seek to have Defendant be a witness against himself, assist the Plaintiffs' investigation and identify areas that could result in future prosecution of Defendant, a result clearly prohibited by the Constitution." DE 480 See Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1263 (the "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution and also covers those circumstances
+
+Page No. 14
+
+where the disclosures would not be directly incriminating, but could provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence). Accordingly, the court at DE 480 sustained Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege as it related to each of the subject net worth/asset discovery requests. Since the tax returns could result in the production of the same asset/net worth infommtion, the requests are subject to the Fifth Amendment and, thus, this court should sustain Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege.
+
+# (iii) Plaintiff's Third Theory Is Fatal To Request Numbers 12 and 13
+
+Under Plaintiff's Third Theory, she claims Epstein's tax returns may reveal the existence and location of modeling agencies Epstein uses to lure underage girls to him for sexual purposes. (E 485) These issues have been addressed at DE 293. In particular, this court sustained Epstein's objections to producing information regarding ". . . MC2 models or Jean Luc Brunel relating or referring to females coming into the United States from other countries . . . . [because it] could reveal the availability to him of and/or use by him of interstate facilities. . . ." DE 293, p.6. In making such a ruling, the court recognized much of the argument set out above and herein including, but not limited to, various federal and state criminal statutes claimed to have been violated by Epstein (i.e., 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) and 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)), argument for which was provided in camera and considered by this court. See g., DE 242 and 293.
+
+While the government (i.e., the IRS) may have Epstein's tax returns and passport in some form or another, it does not have information that may corroborate Plaintiffs' claims of travel in interstate commerce, use of interstate facilities to commit crimes and/or violations of various federal and state criminal statutes. Given the recent news reports regarding the potential for Epstein to be re-indicted due the alleged finding of the "black book," responding to request numbers 12 and 13 may provide a link in the chain of evidence and, thus, presents a real and
+
+Page No. 15
+
+substantial danger of self-incrimination in this case, in other related cases and as well in areas that could result in criminal prosecution. Accordingly, this court should sustain Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege as to request numbers 12 and 13.
+
+#### (iv) Plaintiff's Third Theory Is Fatal To Request Number 12
+
+Finally, Plaintiffs Fourth Theory is that the tax returns may provide a link in the chain of evidence used to establish a nexus to Epstein's alleged offenses under 18 U.S.C. 2255. As state above,
+
+his is exactly why Plaintiff wishes to obtain the requested information — to further prosecute Epstein or assist in the progress of same. Accordingly, for the same reasons expressed herein, Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege should be sustained.
+
+Wherefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court issue and order:
+
+- a. finding that the danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this case relative to the above requests is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary;
+- b. sustaining Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege as it relates to the above requests and denying Plaintiff's Motion in that regard;
+- c. reversing and/or revising the Magistrate's Order (DE 462) relative to Request Numbers 10, 12 and 13 and entering an amended order sustaining Epstein's objections to the Magistrate's Order as to those specific requests and not requiring him to produce information relative to same;
+- d. striking as untimely Plaintiff's new arguments in her response in opposition (DE 495) relative to Request Numbers 7, 9 and 10 for failure to file the appropriate Rule 4 Appeal and/or reversing and/or revising the Magistrate's Order (DE
+
+Page No. 16
+
+462) relative to Request Numbers 7, 9 and 10 and entering an amended order sustaining Epstein's objections to the Magistrate's Order as to those specific requests and not requiring him to produce information relative to same;
+
+e. remanding this appeal to the Magistrate-Judge for her reconsideration of these portions of her order;
+
+f. alternatively, if this court rules that any of the information requested herein is relevant, it shall only do so after an in camera hearing and only after this court ensures that each and every documents produced is the subject of a heightenedconfidentiality order;
+
+R. for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Michael J.. Pike MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 26th day of March, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Michale J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcritabc1claw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mnike@bc1claw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119
+Page No. 17
+
+561/842-2820 Phone
+561/515-3148 Fax
+(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+**Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein**
+**Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ [REDACTED]**
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+Suite 2218
+Miami, FL 33160
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+[ssm@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ssm@sexabuseattorney.com)
+[ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs*
+*In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994*
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+561-659-8300
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+[jagesq@bellsouth.net](mailto:jagesq@bellsouth.net)
+
+*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein*
+
+[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman, PL
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+[brad@pathtojustice.com](mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893*
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+*Pro Hac Vice*
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+801-585-5202
+
+801-585-6833 Fax
+[cassellp@law.utah.edu](mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu)
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+Isidro M. [REDACTED], Esq.
+[REDACTED] Law Firm, P.A.
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561-832-7732
+561-832-7137 F
+[isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net](mailto:isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469*
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+Miami, FL 33130
+305 358-2800
+
+Page No. 18
+
+Fax: 305 358-2382
+
+rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
+
+kezell@nodhurst.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff's in Related Case
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748887/EFTA02748887.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748887/EFTA02748887.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5687ba67b4fe621f8f02aec0dc2a9a2760c4c9c5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748887/EFTA02748887.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,980 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748887.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 18,
+ "chars": 27163,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 100.28,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 76.94999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 415.10565185546875,
+ 76.94999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 415.10565185546875,
+ 105.7230224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 105.7230224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO \nDEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REOUEST FOR RULE \n4 REVIEW AND APPEAL, WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 73.44,
+ 338.58
+ ],
+ [
+ 545.6232299804688,
+ 338.58
+ ],
+ [
+ 545.6232299804688,
+ 382.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 73.44,
+ 382.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "I. The Requests For Production, Argument And Memorandum Of Law",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 111.99600000000001,
+ 503.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 507.54058837890625,
+ 503.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 507.54058837890625,
+ 520.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 111.99600000000001,
+ 520.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "a. Request Number 7, 9 and 10",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 233.784,
+ 531.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.1962585449219,
+ 531.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.1962585449219,
+ 547.4830169677734
+ ],
+ [
+ 233.784,
+ 547.4830169677734
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(i) Plaintiff Limited the Scope of the Requests In Her Reply",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 162.18,
+ 558.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 493.1571044921875,
+ 558.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 493.1571044921875,
+ 574.8530120849609
+ ],
+ [
+ 162.18,
+ 574.8530120849609
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(iii) Work-Product \u2014 Palm Beach State Attorneys' File",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 159.732,
+ 648.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 458.99334716796875,
+ 648.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 458.99334716796875,
+ 664.1030120849609
+ ],
+ [
+ 159.732,
+ 664.1030120849609
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "b. Request Numbers 12 and 13",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 231.948,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.51324462890625,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.51324462890625,
+ 100.55352783203125
+ ],
+ [
+ 231.948,
+ 100.55352783203125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(i) Plaintiff's First Theory Is Fatal To Request Numbers 12 and 13",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 137.088,
+ 222.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 483.86883544921875,
+ 222.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 483.86883544921875,
+ 239.9730224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 137.088,
+ 239.9730224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(ii) Plaintiff's Second Theory Is Fatal To Request No. 12",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 181.152,
+ 137.70000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 475.85064697265625,
+ 137.70000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 475.85064697265625,
+ 154.4730224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 181.152,
+ 154.4730224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(iii) Plaintiff's Third Theory Is Fatal To Request Numbers 12 and 13",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 146.268,
+ 248.67000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 504.716796875,
+ 248.67000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 504.716796875,
+ 266.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 146.268,
+ 266.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(iv) Plaintiff's Third Theory Is Fatal To Request Number 12",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 167.07600000000002,
+ 165.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 482.7142333984375,
+ 165.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 482.7142333984375,
+ 179.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 167.07600000000002,
+ 179.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 252.144,
+ 386.37
+ ],
+ [
+ 366.84051513671875,
+ 386.37
+ ],
+ [
+ 366.84051513671875,
+ 403.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 252.144,
+ 403.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ [REDACTED]",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 190.332,
+ 166.04999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 420.4440000000001,
+ 166.04999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 420.4440000000001,
+ 207.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 190.332,
+ 207.36
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 73
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 75
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 60
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 68
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748887"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748905/EFTA02748905.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748905/EFTA02748905.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb28d075e5208e699050b051817cf67ab366e277
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748905/EFTA02748905.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAJJOHNSON
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-8' APPEAL PURSUANT TO S.D.FLA.MAG.4 AND OBJECTIONS AS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER ON NET WORTH DISCOVERY (DE 493)
+
+This matter came before the Court on Defendant's, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Motion for Extension to file Response to Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8' Appeal Pursuant to S.D.Fla.Mag.4 and Objections as to Magistrate Judge's Order on Net Worth Discovery (DE 293) dated March 18, 2010. Having considered Defendant's motion it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED as follows:
+
+1. The Defendant shall file with the clerk of Court, and serve on all parties, his Response to Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8' Appeal Pursuant to S.D.Fla.Mag.4 and Objection sas to Magistrates Judge's Order on Net Worth Discovery on or before April 12, 2010.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010.
+
+Kenneth A. Marra United States District Judge
+
+Courtesy Copies: Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748905/EFTA02748905.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748905/EFTA02748905.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d8d32dba766b005cdbb49013e4b6e7382b4e62cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748905/EFTA02748905.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748905.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1266,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.72,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 76.94999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 413.712,
+ 76.94999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 413.712,
+ 103.68
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 103.68
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE RESPONSE \nTO PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-8' APPEAL PURSUANT TO \nS.D.FLA.MAG.4 AND OBJECTIONS AS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER \nON NET WORTH DISCOVERY (DE 493)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 94.248,
+ 363.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.768,
+ 363.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.768,
+ 421.20000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 94.248,
+ 421.20000000000005
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 211
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748905"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748907/EFTA02748907.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748907/EFTA02748907.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d217b264d26b1781d5a2f61b0cc9704914252bf6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748907/EFTA02748907.md
@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+/
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+/
+
+### DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-8', APPEAL PURSUANT TO S.D.FLA.MAG.4 AND OBJECTIONS AS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER ON NET WORTH DISCOVERY (493)
+
+Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein") by and through his undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an Extension of Time in which to Respond to Plaintiffs, Jane Doe Nos. 2-8', Appeal Pursuant to S.D.Fla. Mag.R.4. Defendant seeks an additional ten (10) business days until April 12, 2010 to file his Response. As good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant states:
+
+- 1. On March 4, 2010 this Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Net Worth Discovery (DE 480).
+- 2. On March 18, 2010, 2010 both the Defendant and the Plaintiffs filed Motions for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal (Des 488 and 493).
+
+3. Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8' Appeal Pursuant to S.D.Fla.Mag.R.4 and Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order on Net Worth Discovery is currently due on March 29, 2010.
+
+4. As the Court is well aware, counsel for the Defendant is inundated with discovery requests, responses and replies, and just finalized and filed his Reply to Plaintiff, Jane Doe's, Response in Opposition to Defendant's Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal relating to a previous Order entered by this Court. Further, counsel for the Defendant has been in attendance of several full day depositions both is these case and other unrelated matters.
+
+6. While this request is reasonable, counsel for the Defendant has spoken to counsel for the Plaintiff and counsel for the Plaintiff is in agreement with five (5) business day extension, but not a ten (10) business day extension.
+
+Wherefore, the undersigned respectfully requests the relief sought herein, and for such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper.
+
+# Local Rule 7.1 Statement
+
+Counsel for the movant conferred by e-mail with counsel for the Plaintiff and Counsel for Plaintiff is in agreement with a five (5) business day extension, but not a ten (10) business day extension.
+
+> By: /s/ Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR. Florida Bar #224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by electronic mail (e-mail) on this 26h day of March, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike
+ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
+Florida Bar No. 224162
+rcrit@bclclaw.com
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+Florida Bar #617296
+mpike@bclclaw.com
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER &
+COLEMAN
+303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561/842-2820 Phone
+561/515-3148 Fax
+(*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein*)
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+**Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein**
+**Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON**
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+Suite 2218
+Miami, FL 33160
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+ssm@sexabuseattorney.com
+ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs*
+
+*In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, Paul G. Cassell, Esq.*
+
+Farmer , Jaffe, Weissing, ██████████, Fistos
+& Lehrman, PL
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.*
+08-80893
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300
+
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+
+inesa@bellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+
+Miami, FL 33130
+
+305 358-2800
+
+Fax: 305 358-2382
+
+dosefsberapodhurst.com
+
+kezellAvodhurst.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos.
+
+09-80591 and 09-80656
+
+Pro Hoc Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+
+801-585-5202
+
+801-585-6833 Fax
+
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe
+
+Isidro M. Esq.
+
+=Law Firm, P.A.
+
+224 Datum Street, Suite 900
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561-832-7732
+
+561-832-7137 F
+
+isidroearcia©bellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.
+
+08-80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748907/EFTA02748907.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748907/EFTA02748907.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..537d287de978dab092183f2c17231b3032bf3fe5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748907/EFTA02748907.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748907.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 4819,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 6.23,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 76.94999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 417.7664489746094,
+ 76.94999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 417.7664489746094,
+ 106.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 106.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO \nPLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-8', APPEAL PURSUANT TO S.D.FLA.MAG.4 AND \nOBJECTIONS AS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER ON NET WORTH \nDISCOVERY (493)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 100.98000000000002,
+ 364.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 521.9917602539062,
+ 364.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 521.9917602539062,
+ 419.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 100.98000000000002,
+ 419.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Local Rule 7.1 Statement",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 245.412,
+ 461.69999999999993
+ ],
+ [
+ 380.8933410644531,
+ 461.69999999999993
+ ],
+ [
+ 380.8933410644531,
+ 478.4730224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 245.412,
+ 478.4730224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 252.144,
+ 116.63999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 364.75199999999995,
+ 116.63999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 364.75199999999995,
+ 130.41
+ ],
+ [
+ 252.144,
+ 130.41
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 194.61599999999999,
+ 473.84999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 426.56399999999996,
+ 473.84999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 426.56399999999996,
+ 514.3499999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 194.61599999999999,
+ 514.3499999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 82
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 40
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748907"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748911/EFTA02748911.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748911/EFTA02748911.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..866e97540f56e9df23dbc3a3dd2ed48aafdbc7d7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748911/EFTA02748911.md
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+AO SSA (Rev. 0609) Subpoena to TestilS, at a Deposition in a Civil Action
+
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+
+for the
+
+Southern District of Florida
+
+Plaintiff
+
+v.
+
+To: Cassandra
+
+Defendant
+
+Civil Action No. 08-CIV-80119-Marra/MIN
+
+(If the action is pending in another district, state where:
+
+## SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
+
+ty Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment:
+
+| Place: Prose Court Reporting, 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 | Date and Time: 02/23/2010 2:00 pm |
+|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
+|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
+
+The deposition will be recorded by this method: VIDEO
+
+O Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sytptjng of the material:
+
+7O/ 2/3bo 6:","\
+
+The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule 45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are attached.
+
+Date: 02/03/2010
+
+CLERK OF COURT
+
+OR
+
+Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Alt• ney's signature
+
+The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party Defendant
+
+, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
+
+Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq., BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP, 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite #400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Tel: (561) 842-2820, Fax: (561)844-6929.
+
+" A"
+
+**Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07)(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena.****(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions.** A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction — which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees — on a party or attorney who fails to comply.
+
+**(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.****(A) Appearance Not Required.** A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.
+
+**(B) Objections.** A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:
+
+(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.
+
+(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.
+
+**(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.****(A) When Required.** On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that:
+
+- (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
+- (ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person — except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where the trial is held;
+- (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or
+- (iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
+
+**(B) When Permitted.** To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:
+
+- (i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information;
+- (ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or
+- (iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial.
+
+**(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative.** In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:
+
+- (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and
+- (ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
+
+**(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.****(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information.** These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:
+
+**(A) Documents.** A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
+
+**(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.** If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
+
+**(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form.** The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
+
+**(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information.** The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
+
+**(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.****(A) Information Withheld.** A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:
+
+- (i) expressly make the claim; and
+- (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
+
+**(B) Information Produced.** If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.
+
+**(e) Contempt.** The issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748911/EFTA02748911.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748911/EFTA02748911.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e7505993dfc8e031b6d3f765b26b1d40e673246
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748911/EFTA02748911.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,285 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748911.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 8811,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 24.11,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 176.25599999999997,
+ 81.81
+ ],
+ [
+ 442.8264465332031,
+ 81.81
+ ],
+ [
+ 442.8264465332031,
+ 101.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 176.25599999999997,
+ 101.25
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 145.04399999999998,
+ 226.8
+ ],
+ [
+ 476.364013671875,
+ 226.8
+ ],
+ [
+ 476.364013671875,
+ 243.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 145.04399999999998,
+ 243.0
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 152.388,
+ 105.30000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 468.79200000000003,
+ 105.30000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 468.79200000000003,
+ 119.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 152.388,
+ 119.07
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 48.96,
+ 123.93
+ ],
+ [
+ 232.56,
+ 123.93
+ ],
+ [
+ 232.56,
+ 136.07999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 48.96,
+ 136.07999999999998
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 58.14,
+ 209.79000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 276.012,
+ 209.79000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 276.012,
+ 221.13000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 58.14,
+ 221.13000000000002
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.019999999999996,
+ 431.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 204.40800000000002,
+ 431.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 204.40800000000002,
+ 443.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.019999999999996,
+ 443.88
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 314.56800000000004,
+ 124.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 476.1360000000001,
+ 124.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 476.1360000000001,
+ 136.89000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 314.56800000000004,
+ 136.89000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 317.62800000000004,
+ 401.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 459.0,
+ 401.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 459.0,
+ 413.09999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 317.62800000000004,
+ 413.09999999999997
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 377
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 40
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 42
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748911"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748913/EFTA02748913.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748913/EFTA02748913.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79ebf78eeee5fbd96dc1e67f2ab2a9574f200b74
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748913/EFTA02748913.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+AO 88A (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2)
+
+Civil Action No. 08-CIV-80119-Marra/
+
+PROOF OF SERVICE
+
+(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
+
+This subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any) Cassandra Rivera
+was received by me on (date) 2/3/10.
+
+ I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows: Individual Service
+
+\_\_\_\_\_
+on (date) 2/3/10 ; or
+
+ I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: \_\_\_\_\_
+
+Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of \$ 45,00.
+
+My fees are \$ \_\_\_\_\_ for travel and \$ \_\_\_\_\_ for services, for a total of \$ 0.00.
+
+I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
+
+Date: 2/6/10
+
+Edward Cameron
+Server's signature
+
+Edward Cameron Certified Process Server #401
+Printed name and title
+
+[Redacted Server's address]
+Server's address
+
+Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
+
+"B"
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748913/EFTA02748913.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748913/EFTA02748913.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0cd3962fd8b6d54f100146899b1bb935e12aaec1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748913/EFTA02748913.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748913.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 1153,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 5.34,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "PROOF OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 102.06
+ ],
+ [
+ 362.916,
+ 102.06
+ ],
+ [
+ 362.916,
+ 113.4
+ ],
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 113.4
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748913"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748914/EFTA02748914.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748914/EFTA02748914.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..80b8a42ff4d8220cb9002deca19d69f96c6534a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748914/EFTA02748914.md
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+-vs-
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPEARANCE
+
+I, Cynthia , Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida at Large, was duly designated to take the deposition of the witness:
+
+CASSANDRA
+
+I hereby certify that aforesaid witness did not appear before me between 2:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. on the 23rd day of February, 2010.
+
+Dated this 3rd day of March, 20
+
+nthia J. ✓ts RPR
+
+
+
+Prose Court Reporting Agency, Inc. West Palm Beach, Florida Job No. 1309
+
+II
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748914/EFTA02748914.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748914/EFTA02748914.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b42ca731ea0173d08db821fac9218d9c47c4042
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748914/EFTA02748914.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748914.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 780,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.09,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 209.91600000000003,
+ 74.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 440.7715759277344,
+ 74.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 440.7715759277344,
+ 104.83209228515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 209.91600000000003,
+ 104.83209228515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPEARANCE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 386.37
+ ],
+ [
+ 440.56549072265625,
+ 386.37
+ ],
+ [
+ 440.56549072265625,
+ 402.5920715332031
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 402.5920715332031
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748914"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748914/_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748914/_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e8f99de032eb7984516831d570349ff30ca31ca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748914/_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:b22c9d89fcdb756cc75f23a8f00283c829fac0ed758a762a8550b9416e228f17
+size 11313
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748915/EFTA02748915.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748915/EFTA02748915.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b99fe13d679e9e1148d698c8ede1df31b9180d54
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748915/EFTA02748915.md
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER ON EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASSANDRA SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT
+
+THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's ("Epstein"), Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Cassandra Should not be Held in Contempt of Court (DE # ). The Court has reviewed the Motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
+
+On February 3, 2010, non-party Cassandra was properly served with a subpoena for deposition scheduled to occur on February 23, 2010. Cassandra failed to appear at her deposition on February 23, 2010 and failed to provide an adequate excuse for failure to obey the subpoena. Accordingly, it hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
+
+- (1) Within (5) days of entry of this Order, Epstein is directed to appoint a process server to serve a copy of this Order on Cassandra la consistent with Rule 4(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
+
+(2) Cassandra = must appear for deposition on or before 2010.
+
+(3) Upon receipt of this Order, Cassandra = is directed to immediately contact counsel for Epstein at 561-842-2820 to schedule a deposition time.
+
+(4) If Cassandra 1= fails to appear for deposition on or before the date set in paragraph (2) above, she is directed to appear before , 701 Clematis Street, Courtroom , West Palm Beach, FL 33401, to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court on , 2010 at a.m./p.m.
+
+(5) If Cassandra =appears for deposition on or before , she is not required to attend the show cause hearing set for 2010 at
+
+DONE AND ORDERED in at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this day of , 2010
+
+> LINNEA R. UNITED STA MAGISTRATE JUDGE
+
+i 2
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748915/EFTA02748915.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748915/EFTA02748915.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ff1d4d14a0aa1b952da8f54b9544f583c874e0e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748915/EFTA02748915.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748915.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1937,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.77,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 194.61599999999999,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.2203674316406,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.2203674316406,
+ 104.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 194.61599999999999,
+ 104.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER ON EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY \nCASSANDRA SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 92.41199999999999,
+ 362.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 517.5502319335938,
+ 362.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 517.5502319335938,
+ 393.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 92.41199999999999,
+ 393.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 37
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748915"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748917/EFTA02748917.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748917/EFTA02748917.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd3241bfc1ab0854550e4b5526c48c14d1190920
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748917/EFTA02748917.md
@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/Mil
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+# MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASSANDRA SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e) moves for an Order to Show Cause why Cassandra should not be held in contempt of court for failing to obey a subpoena requiring her to appear at a deposition on February 23, 2010, and states:
+
+- 1. On February 3, 2010, non-party Cassandra was served with a subpoena for deposition scheduled to occur on February 23, 2010. A copy of the subpoena and affidavit of service are attached as Exhibits A & B, respectively.
+- 2. Despite being properly served with the subpoena, Cassandra failed to appear at her deposition on February 23, 2010. A Certificate of Non-Appearance is attached as Exhibit C.
+
+3. Rule 45(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that the court "may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena." See also v. Mone, 2008 WL 5111521 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (granting motion for contempt where deponent failed to appear at deposition after being served with subpoena and failed to appear at show cause hearing); United States v. Pierre, 2007 WL 5268245 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (holding defendant in contempt and issuing awarrant for his arrest where defendant failed to appear at deposition pursuant to subpoena and failed to appear at the hearing on plaintiff's motion for order to show cause).
+
+4. did not notify the undersigned that she would not (or could not) attend her properly noticed deposition. Nor did contact the undersigned after February 23, 2010 to provide an excuse or explanation as to her failure to appear.
+
+5. In her deposition taken on March 11, 2010, Plaintiff testified that she knew Cassandra had been served with a subpoena for deposition, had spoken to Cassandra but Cassandra did not state why she did not attend her deposition. See 3/11/10 Deposition of Plaintiff at 473.
+
+6. Accordingly, Epstein requests the Court enter an Order to Show Cause why Cassandra should not be held in contempt of court. A proposed Order is attached as
+
+### Exhibit D.
+
+7. The proposed Order provides that ■- **can avoid the need to appear at a show cause hearing by appearing for deposition on or before adate certain. Epstein recommends the court require her attendance at deposition on or before April 16, 2009.**
+
+**8. Epstein also requests the Court set a hearing on his Motion for Order to Show Cause in the event fails to appear for deposition on or before April 16, 2009.**
+
+WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order to Show Cause as to why Cassandra should not be held in contempt of Court and set ashow cause hearing in the event Cassandra fails to purge the contempt and appear for deposition on or before April 16, 2010 and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.
+
+Is, Robert D. Critton, Jr.
+
+Robert D. Critton, Jr.
+
+Michael J. Pike
+
+Attorneys for Defendant Epstein
+
+### Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that atrue copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 29th day of March, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /W Robert D. Critton, Jr
+
+ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar No. 224162
+
+rcritQbelclaw.com
+
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar €1617296
+
+mpike®bciclaw.com
+
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN
+
+303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561/842-2820 Phone
+
+561/515-3148 Fax
+
+(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+**Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein**
+**Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/** [REDACTED]
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+Suite 2218
+Miami, FL 33160
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+[ssm@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ssm@sexabuseattorney.com)
+[ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs*
+*In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994*
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+561-659-8300
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+[jagesq@bellsouth.net](mailto:jagesq@bellsouth.net)
+*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein*
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+Miami, FL 33130
+305 358-2800
+Fax: 305 358-2382
+[rjosefsberg@podhurst.com](mailto:rjosefsberg@podhurst.com)
+[kezell@podhurst.com](mailto:kezell@podhurst.com)
+
+Brad [REDACTED] Esq.
+[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED] Fistos &
+Lehrman, PL
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+[brad@pathtojustice.com](mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893*
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+*Pro Hac Vice*
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+801-585-5202
+801-585-6833 Fax
+[cassellp@law.utah.edu](mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu)
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+
+Isidro M. [REDACTED] Esq.
+[REDACTED] Law Firm, P.A.
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561-832-7732
+561-832-7137 F
+[isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net](mailto:isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748917/EFTA02748917.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748917/EFTA02748917.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..24eaeea6ef326b43a174924b15ca10bd02af0d85
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748917/EFTA02748917.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,292 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748917.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 5950,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 9.24,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 194.61599999999999,
+ 81.81
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.2765197753906,
+ 81.81
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.2765197753906,
+ 110.16000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 194.61599999999999,
+ 110.16000000000003
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY \nCASSANDRA SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 92.41199999999999,
+ 370.98
+ ],
+ [
+ 515.9159999999999,
+ 370.98
+ ],
+ [
+ 515.9159999999999,
+ 401.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 92.41199999999999,
+ 401.76
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Exhibit D.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 69.156,
+ 557.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 127.19527435302734,
+ 557.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 127.19527435302734,
+ 570.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 69.156,
+ 570.24
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 246.02400000000003,
+ 310.23
+ ],
+ [
+ 358.02,
+ 310.23
+ ],
+ [
+ 358.02,
+ 323.19
+ ],
+ [
+ 246.02400000000003,
+ 323.19
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ [REDACTED]",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 184.82399999999998,
+ 87.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 369.64799999999997,
+ 87.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 369.64799999999997,
+ 127.98000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 184.82399999999998,
+ 127.98000000000002
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 206
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 355
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 240
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 66
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748917"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748921/EFTA02748921.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748921/EFTA02748921.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd19edd8c4d8efbe0e4066a61a6afbcfff7c570d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748921/EFTA02748921.md
@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+*plead
+orig. plead
+#2*
+
+AO 88A (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action
+
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+
+for the
+
+Southern District of Florida
+
+[Redacted]
+
+Plaintiff
+
+v.
+
+Defendant
+
+)
+)
+)
+)
+)
+)
+)
+
+Civil Action No. 08-CIV-80119-Marra/[Redacted]
+
+(If the action is pending in another district, state where:
+
+)
+
+## SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
+
+To: Samantha [Redacted]
+
+Testimony: **YOU ARE COMMANDED** to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization that is *not* a party in this case, you must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment:
+
+| Place: Prose Court Reporting, 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 | Date and Time: 02/23/2010 11:00 am |
+|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
+|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
+
+The deposition will be recorded by this method: VIDEO
+
+ Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material:
+
+*E.C. #4101
+2/14/10
+2:40 P.m.*
+
+The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule 45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are attached.
+
+Date: 02/03/2010
+
+CLERK OF COURT
+
+OR
+
+Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
+
+Attorney's signature
+
+The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) \_\_\_\_\_ Defendant
+
+, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
+
+Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq., BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP, 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite #400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Tel: (561) 842-2820, Fax: (561) 844-6929.
+
+"A"
+
+## Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07)
+
+## (c) Protecting aPerson Subject to a Subpoena.
+
+(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction — which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees — on a party or attorney who fails to comply.
+
+#### (2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.
+
+(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.
+
+(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena awritten objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:
+
+(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.
+
+(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.
+
+## (3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena
+
+(A) When Required On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that:
+
+(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
+
+(II) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person — except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(3Xiii), the person may be commanded to attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where the trial is held;
+
+(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or
+
+(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
+
+(B) When Permitted To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:
+
+(i) disclosing atrade secret or other confidential research. development, or commercial information;
+
+(ii) disclosing an unremined expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or
+
+(iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial.
+
+(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule 46(eX3)B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:
+
+(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and
+
+#### (d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
+
+## (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information.
+
+These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:
+
+(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
+
+(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoena does not specify aform for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in areasonably usable form or forms.
+
+(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
+
+(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible hnnanse of undue burden or cost On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(bX2XC). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
+
+## (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
+
+(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:
+
+(i) expressly make the claim; and
+
+(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to access the claim.
+
+(B) Information Produced If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialpreparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.
+
+(e) Contempt. The issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a place outside the limits of Rule 45(cX3)(AXii).
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748921/EFTA02748921.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748921/EFTA02748921.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01055b130b6a9b91fbad7ceafdc7dd6a12cabf68
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748921/EFTA02748921.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,316 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748921.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 8824,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 9.6,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 179.316,
+ 81.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 440.02799999999996,
+ 81.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 440.02799999999996,
+ 101.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 179.316,
+ 101.25
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 148.71599999999998,
+ 225.99000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 476.748,
+ 225.99000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 476.748,
+ 244.61999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 148.71599999999998,
+ 244.61999999999998
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 153.0,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 470.0577087402344,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 470.0577087402344,
+ 113.4
+ ],
+ [
+ 153.0,
+ 113.4
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(c) Protecting aPerson Subject to a Subpoena.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 47.736000000000004,
+ 119.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 234.90817260742188,
+ 119.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 234.90817260742188,
+ 133.36029052734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 47.736000000000004,
+ 133.36029052734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 47.736000000000004,
+ 205.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 279.2716064453125,
+ 205.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 279.2716064453125,
+ 218.39654541015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 47.736000000000004,
+ 218.39654541015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 53.855999999999995,
+ 428.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 211.93162536621094,
+ 428.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 211.93162536621094,
+ 442.3115234375
+ ],
+ [
+ 53.855999999999995,
+ 442.3115234375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 315.79200000000003,
+ 117.44999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 478.2693786621094,
+ 117.44999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 478.2693786621094,
+ 130.30902099609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 315.79200000000003,
+ 130.30902099609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 315.79200000000003,
+ 127.17
+ ],
+ [
+ 566.712,
+ 127.17
+ ],
+ [
+ 566.712,
+ 140.7640380859375
+ ],
+ [
+ 315.79200000000003,
+ 140.7640380859375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 315.79200000000003,
+ 393.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 467.5756530761719,
+ 393.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 467.5756530761719,
+ 407.3864440917969
+ ],
+ [
+ 315.79200000000003,
+ 407.3864440917969
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 387
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1185
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 116
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748921"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748923/EFTA02748923.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748923/EFTA02748923.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0d1e8eb332fa6565347ac9ede026dbdb0c51685
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748923/EFTA02748923.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+AO 88A (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2)
+
+Civil Action No. 08-CIV-80119-Marra/ [REDACTED]
+
+PROOF OF SERVICE
+
+(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
+
+This subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any) Samantha Rivera
+was received by me on (date) 2/3/10.
+
+ I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows: Individual Service
+[REDACTED] on (date) 2/4/10; or
+
+ I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: \_\_\_\_\_
+
+Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of \$ 45.00.
+
+My fees are \$ \_\_\_\_\_ for travel and \$ \_\_\_\_\_ for services, for a total of \$ 0.00.
+
+I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
+
+Date: 2/6/10
+
+Edward Cameron
+Server's signature
+
+Edward Cameron Certified Process Server #401
+Printed name and title
+
+[REDACTED]
+Server's address
+
+Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
+
+"B"
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748923/EFTA02748923.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748923/EFTA02748923.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74dddf692f02aceaecc43ee764e1d5459a78e82c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748923/EFTA02748923.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748923.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 1144,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 5.45,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "PROOF OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 112.59
+ ],
+ [
+ 362.916,
+ 112.59
+ ],
+ [
+ 362.916,
+ 123.93
+ ],
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 123.93
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 225
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748923"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748924/EFTA02748924.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748924/EFTA02748924.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b7ea4fbe096baead1fbdec2df21c8ec6a0e08d1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748924/EFTA02748924.md
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+-vs-
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+## Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPEARANCE
+
+I, Cynthia MIS Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida at Large, was duly designated to take the deposition of the witness:
+
+SAMANTHA
+
+not a.m Ihereby certify that aforesaid witness did appear before me between 11:00 a.m. and 11:30 on the 23rd day of February, 2010.
+
+Dated this 3rd day of March, 20
+
+iS nthia J. , RPR
+
+
+
+Prose Court Reporting Agency, Inc. West Palm Beach, Florida Job No. 1309 n
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748924/EFTA02748924.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748924/EFTA02748924.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d911e694c2218e05f210372dd694b5c235b29dc1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748924/EFTA02748924.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748924.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 802,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.33,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_17.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 80.19
+ ],
+ [
+ 439.70660400390625,
+ 80.19
+ ],
+ [
+ 439.70660400390625,
+ 113.04193115234375
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 113.04193115234375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Related cases:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 117.50399999999999,
+ 294.84000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 239.90234375,
+ 294.84000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 239.90234375,
+ 310.0977783203125
+ ],
+ [
+ 117.50399999999999,
+ 310.0977783203125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPEARANCE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 392.04
+ ],
+ [
+ 446.650146484375,
+ 392.04
+ ],
+ [
+ 446.650146484375,
+ 411.28778076171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 411.28778076171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 174
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748924"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748924/_page_0_Picture_17.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748924/_page_0_Picture_17.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01abb38b8cf7f058f0e92c49441943806cef2fdc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748924/_page_0_Picture_17.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:ce4f1430ec6786a7c688d2f8ace4b037d18e13231e2cc23a314afac98045f5eb
+size 10503
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748925/EFTA02748925.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748925/EFTA02748925.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..00f7be8d7acef754466f5c864a741af2f6583d2e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748925/EFTA02748925.md
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER ON EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SAMANTHA SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT
+
+THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's ("Epstein"), Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Samantha Should not be Held in Contempt of Court (DE # ). The Court has reviewed the Motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
+
+On February 4, 2010, non-party Samantha was properly served with a subpoena for deposition scheduled to occur on February 23, 2010. Samantha failed to appear at her deposition on February 23, 2010 and failed to provide an adequate excuse for failure to obey the subpoena. Accordingly, it hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
+
+- (1) Within (5) days of entry of this Order, Epstein is directed to appoint a process server to serve a copy of this Order on Samantha =, consistent with Rule 4(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
+
+- (2) Samantha =must appear for deposition on or before , 2010.
+- (3) Upon receipt of this Order, Samantha =is directed to immediately contact counsel for Epstein at 561-842-2820 to schedule a deposition time.
+- (4) If Samantha = fails to appear for deposition on or before the date set in paragraph (2) above, she is directed to appear before , 701 Clematis Street, Courtroom West Palm Beach, FL 33401, to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court on , 2010 at a.m./p.m.
+- (5) If Samantha =appears for deposition on or before , she is not required to attend the show cause hearing set for , 2010 at
+
+DONE AND ORDERED in at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this day of , 2010
+
+> UNNEA R. UNITED STA rISTRATE JUDGE
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748925/EFTA02748925.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748925/EFTA02748925.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f90bc06ada912a4ef2b14830ebc29fd998cdf9e1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748925/EFTA02748925.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748925.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1924,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.78,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 195.84,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 409.48565673828125,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 409.48565673828125,
+ 103.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 195.84,
+ 103.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER ON EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY \nSAMANTHA SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 94.248,
+ 362.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.9202270507812,
+ 362.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.9202270507812,
+ 393.35302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 94.248,
+ 393.35302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748925"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748927/EFTA02748927.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748927/EFTA02748927.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2fd6d6d0327f78b2d736471ca1127c388fc221ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748927/EFTA02748927.md
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRALIMMI
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SAMANTHA SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e) moves for an Order to Show Cause why Samantha should not be held in contempt of court for failing to obey a subpoena requiring her to appear at a deposition on February 23, 2010, and states:
+
+- 1. On February 4, 2010, non-party Samantha was served with a subpoena for deposition scheduled to occur on February 23, 2010. A copy of the subpoena and affidavit of service are attached as Exhibits A & B, respectively.
+- 2. Despite being properly served with the subpoena, Samantha failed to appear at her deposition on February 23, 2010. A Certificate of Non-Appearance is attached as Exhibit C.
+
+3. Rule 45(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that the court "may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena." See also= v. Mone, 2008 WL 5111521 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (granting motion for contempt where deponent failed to appear at deposition after being served with subpoena and failed to appear at show cause hearing); United States v. Pierre, 2007 WL 5268245 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (holding defendant in contempt and issuing a warrant for his arrest where defendant failed to appear at deposition pursuant to subpoena and failed to appear at the hearing on plaintiff's motion for order to show cause).
+
+4. MIES did not notify the undersigned that she would not (or could not) attend her properly noticed deposition. Nor did EMI contact the undersigned after February 23, 2010 to provide an excuse or explanation as to her failure to appear.
+
+5. Counsel for Epstein has attempted to contact III= in an effort to reschedule her deposition, but has not returned any phone calls.
+
+6. Accordingly, Epstein requests the Court enter an Order to Show Cause why Samantha should not be held in contempt of court. A proposed Order is attached as Exhibit D.
+
+7. The proposed Order provides that II can avoid the need to appear at a show cause hearing by appearing for deposition on or before a date certain. Epstein recommends the court require her attendance at deposition on or before April 16, 2009.
+
+8. Epstein also requests the Court set a hearing on his Motion for Order to Show Cause in the event fails to appear for deposition on or before April 16, 2009.
+
+WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order to Show Cause as to why Samantha should not be held in contempt of Court and set a show cause hearing in the event Samantha fails to purge the contempt and appear for deposition on or before April 16, 2010 and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.
+
+/s/ Robert D. Critton, Jr.
+
+Robert D. Critton, Jr.
+
+Michael J. Pike
+
+Attorneys for Defendant Epstein
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 29th day of March. 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Robert D. Critton, Jr
+
+ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar No. 224162
+
+rcrit@bciclaw.com
+
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar #617296
+
+mpike@bc1claw.com
+
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
+
+303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561/842-2820 Phone
+
+561/515-3148 Fax
+
+(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+## Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRAa.
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ssm@sexabuseattorney.com ahorowitz@sexabuseattomey.com Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 iagescabellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 riosefsberg®podhurst.com kezell@podhurst.com
+
+Brad Esq. , a c, Weissing, Fistos & e rman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 brad@pathtoiustice.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax cassellp@law.utah.edu Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro M. Esq. Lail", P.A. Riatura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748927/EFTA02748927.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748927/EFTA02748927.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0129aeee483025dfc8093345d2d274192f29e7a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748927/EFTA02748927.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,273 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748927.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 5266,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.28,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 197.06400000000002,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.24566650390625,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.24566650390625,
+ 102.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 197.06400000000002,
+ 102.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY \nSAMANTHA SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 95.47200000000001,
+ 361.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.90478515625,
+ 361.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.90478515625,
+ 392.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 95.47200000000001,
+ 392.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 246.02400000000003,
+ 239.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 360.44091796875,
+ 239.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 360.44091796875,
+ 254.30352783203125
+ ],
+ [
+ 246.02400000000003,
+ 254.30352783203125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service \nJane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein \nCase No. 08-CV-80119-MARRAa.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 186.048,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 425.6679992675781,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 425.6679992675781,
+ 119.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 186.048,
+ 119.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 131
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748927"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748931/EFTA02748931.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748931/EFTA02748931.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f2393d73c6d94d99dc71a38c0eaf14485a1e29c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748931/EFTA02748931.md
@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARIZA=.1
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER RELEASING FBI RECORDS REGARDING EPSTEIN
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), submits his Response in Opposition to Plaintiff, Jane Doe's, Motion for Court Order Releasing FBI Records Regarding Jeffrey Epstein ("Motion") (DE #486) and states:
+
+- 1. On March 10, 2010, Jane Doe filed her Motion essentially seeking the FBI's entire file on Epstein pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552a(b)(11).
+- 2. Jane Doe argues that "the FBI gathered significant information about Epstein during the course of its criminal investigation of him for sexually abusing children. She seeks that information to help support her case against him." DE #486 at 2.
+- 3. As a threshold matter, the Court should deny Jane Doe's Motion as the procedures set forth in 28 C.F.R. §16.21, el seq., in requesting records from the FBI were not followed.
+
+4. Moreover, it is interesting that Jane Doe also seeks similar records from Epstein pursuant to various requests to produce which are now the subject of a Rule 4 appeal. See DE #s 477 and 502. These simultaneous requests should be scrutinized and are further reason why the FBI, the U.S. Attorney and the State Attorney must be placed on notice that said records are being sought by "backdoor" discovery methods.
+
+5. Jane Doe does not provide any documents or other information from the FBI or U.S. Attorney in response to her request for records. Indeed, the overly broad and non-specific language of her subpoena could be a reason the FBI has not produced any records. ate 28 C.F.R. §16.3(b) (requiring that "[y]ou must describe the records that you seek in enough detail to enable Department personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. Whenever possible, your request should include specific information about each record sought, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, and subject matter of the record. ... If your request does not reasonably describe the records you seek, the agency's response to your request may be delayed.").
+
+6. Next, the assertion that "[t]he FBI has advised Jane Doe that it will release the materials if this Court enters an appropriate order" is disingenuous. See Motion at 1. There is nothing in the record, either by way of a paper filed by the FBI, affidavit of an FBI representative or even a letter or e-mail, to corroborate Jane Doe's statement. It is telling that the FBI did not produce anything in response to Jane Doe's subpoena, issued approximately five (5) months ago.
+
+7. And it is doubtful the FBI made such a statement as 28 C.F.R. §16.22(a) provides that "no employee or former employee of the Department of Justice shall, in response to a demand, produce any material contained in the files of the Department ... without prior approval of the proper Department official in accordance with §§16.24 and 16.25 of this part." Section
+
+§16.24 requires the matter to be referred to a U.S. Attorney and mandates specific procedures to be followed in determining whether and under what circumstances the requested information should be disclosed. Moreover, the U.S. Attorney must request and receive a summary of the information sought and its relevance to the proceeding. See 28 C.F.R. §16.22(d). Only after these procedures are followed can the FBI and the U.S. Attorney produce responsive materials.
+
+8. Moreover, 28 C.F.R. §16.26(a), outlines various factors the Department must consider in determining whether to disclose records; §16.26(b) provides circumstances under which disclosure will not be made.
+
+9. And even if the Court granted Jane Doe's Motion, the FBI and U.S. Attorney may "respectfully decline to comply" if the requirements of 28 C.F.R. §§16.24 and 16.25 have not been met. See 28 C.F.R. §16.28.
+
+10. The Court should therefore deny Jane Doe's Motion as the procedures and requirements outlined in 28 C.F.R. §16.21, et seq have not been satisifed.
+
+11. This Court should also deny Jane Doe's Motion because it is merely an attempted fishing expedition. Jane Doe fails to demonstrate how the information is relevant to her case such that it would outweigh Epstein's privacy interests.
+
+12. Jane Doe has asserted the following causes of action: Count I — "Sexual Battery Upon a Minor," Count II — "Cause of Action Pursuant to 18 USC §2255," Count III - "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," and Count V — "Cause of Action Pursuant to Florida Statute 796.09."
+
+13. Jane Doe's Florida RICO claim (Count IV) was dismissed with prejudice by this Court on March 3, 2010. See DE #125 in Case No. 08-80893. Yet Jane Doe refers to her "Civil RICO Case Statement" to argue that the FBI's files related and should be produced because of their "involvement in the scheme." See DE #486 at 2.
+
+14. As Jane Doe's RICO claim was dismissed with prejudice, any argument that the FBI's files are relevant to prove a scheme or conspiracy should fall on deaf ears.
+
+15. In addition, Jane Doe asserts that she "need the [FBI] information to help her prove her claims against Epstein." agg DE #486 at 3. Yet, Jane Doe fails to articulate how the FBI's information will help her prove her case. Instead, she makes an amorphous reference to "other young girls whom Epstein sexually abused and who are relevant witnesses to Jane Doe's case." Jane Doe does not explain how these other unidentified young girlsl would be relevant witnesses to her case and it is entirely speculative to suggest they have information relevant to Jane Doe's claims.
+
+16. In her proposed "Privacy Act Court Order" attached to her Motion, Jane Doe notes that the Court must first determine that the need for disclosure of information outweighs the privacy interests of the subject of the disclosure, citing 5 U.S.C. §552a(b)(11), v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 734 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1984) and Tootle v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 468 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
+
+17. and Tootle illustrate why the Court should deny Jane Doe's Motion.
+
+18. In plaintiff sought to collect under a homeowner's insurance policy following the destruction of her home by fire. State Farm asserted an arson defense. State Farm filed a motion pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552a(b)(11) seeking to require the Social Security Administration to testify as to when plaintiff's Social Security benefits terminated (i.e. one month before the fire) to prove that plaintiff had a motivation to burn down her house and collect
+
+Epstein assumes Jane Doe is referring to potential witnesses not currently known to her. If Jane Doe already has the names of the "other young girls" who may be potential witnesses, it undercuts her argument in favor of releasing the FBI records.
+
+insurance proceeds. The court denied the motion and found that "the balance tilts against disclosure because State Farm had no real need for the Social Security Administration's testimony. State Farm could have utilized normal discovery procedures to obtain the information...." Id. at 1447.
+
+19. In Tootle, the plaintiff sought to prevent the Social Security Administration psychologist who examined him in a disability case from giving a deposition in his personal injury case. 468 So. 2d at 238.
+
+20. Jane Doe's request is unlike those in ME and Tootle which sought specific information related to a specific element of the case. To the contrary, Jane Doe makes a broad and blanket request for the FBI's entire file regarding Epstein. Sss Subpoena attached to Jane Doe's Motion. Notably absent from the subpoena is any reference to Jane Doe. Jane Doe is essentially seeking information related to every claim investigated by the FBI as it relates to Epstein. Thus, it is apparent the requested information is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to Jane Doe's claims.
+
+21. Next, the court in held that State Farm did not need the information and could have utilized normal discovery procedures to obtain it. 734 F.2d at 1447. Apart from not being able to demonstrate how the requested information is relevant, Jane Doe fails to demonstrate why she "needs" this information and why she cannot or has not been able to obtain it through traditional discovery.
+
+22. Jane Doe testified regarding the individual who brought her to Epstein's house and as to her knowledge regarding others individuals who went to Mr. Epstein's house. This is not a situation where Jane Doe "needs" the FBI to determine the identity of a specific person that would have information relevant to Jane Doe's claims. This is, instead, a fishing expedition.
+
+23. Indeed, extensive discovery has been conducted in this and related cases and there has been numerous "fishing" expeditions. For example, counsel for Jane Doe deposed Larry Eugene and Larry Visoski, Epstein's pilots, for a combined total of approximately 8 hours without asking any questions related to his client. Instead the questions sought information regarding which celebrities have flown on Epstein's plane, improperly sought to illicit lay opinions from fact witnesses, asked questions regarding witnesses' feelings towards Mr. Epstein and their beliefs regarding media reports of this case, asked whether they would leave their children with Mr. Epstein and asked whether they would go back to work for Mr. Epstein assuming the media reports were accurate, among other things. Indeed, such questions were the subject of a Motion for Protective Order filed in the companion case L.M. v. Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. The Court granted Epstein's motion, finding the types of questions identified therein to be "highly inappropriate and irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
+
+24. Regarding the scope of discovery, Judge Linnea noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order,2 "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). ... Courts have long held that '[w]hile the standard of relevancy [in discovery] is a liberal one, it is not so liberal as to allow a party to roam in the shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matter (sic) which does not presently appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so.' Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (C.A. D.C. 1997) (string cite omitted)."
+
+2 The Omnibus Order DE #377 was entered in the federal companion case Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No. 08- CIV-80119 MA in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.
+
+25. Jane Doe's request for the FBI files clearly steps into the shadow zones of relevancy as Jane Doe fails to establish how the FBI files may be relevant to any of her causes of action.
+
+WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests the Court deny Jane Doe's Motion (DE #486) and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.
+
+> By: s/Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar #224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/EC'''. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 29th day of March 2009.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: s/Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit@bciclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 muike@bciclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/253-0164 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+**Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein**
+**Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA** [REDACTED]
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+Suite 2218
+Miami, FL 33160
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+[ssm@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ssm@sexabuseattorney.com)
+[ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs*
+*In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994*
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+561-659-8300
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+[jagesq@bellsouth.net](mailto:jagesq@bellsouth.net)
+*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein*
+
+Brad [REDACTED], Esq.
+[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos
+& Lehrman, PL
+425 N. Andrews Ave.
+Suite #2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+[Brad@pathtojustice.com](mailto:Brad@pathtojustice.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893*
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+*Pro Hac Vice*
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+801-585-5202
+801-585-6833 Fax
+[cassellp@law.utah.edu](mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu)
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+
+Isidro M. [REDACTED], Esq.
+[REDACTED] Law Firm, P.A.
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561-832-7732
+561-832-7137 F
+[isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net](mailto:isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748931/EFTA02748931.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748931/EFTA02748931.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0544f52e8c720643eea35eb3a9af455e37003512
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748931/EFTA02748931.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,409 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748931.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 8,
+ "chars": 13714,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 6.53,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 203.796,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 419.24566650390625,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 419.24566650390625,
+ 103.4730224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 203.796,
+ 103.4730224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE'S MOTION \nFOR COURT ORDER RELEASING FBI RECORDS REGARDING EPSTEIN",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 362.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 521.6077270507812,
+ 362.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 521.6077270507812,
+ 394.85302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 394.85302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 349.11
+ ],
+ [
+ 368.70050048828125,
+ 349.11
+ ],
+ [
+ 368.70050048828125,
+ 364.85302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 364.85302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA [REDACTED]",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 190.332,
+ 74.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.0559999999999,
+ 74.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.0559999999999,
+ 114.20999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 190.332,
+ 114.20999999999998
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748931"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748939/EFTA02748939.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748939/EFTA02748939.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8cc9afda99f898316f9e1f7b23a86bc1490fd1c7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748939/EFTA02748939.md
@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
+
+# PLAINITFFS JANE DOES 2-8' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER ON NET WORTH DISCOVERY (DE 480)
+
+Plaintiffs Jane Does Nos. 2-8 ("Plaintiffs"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file this Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Magistrate Judge's Order on Net Worth Discovery (DE 480), as follows:
+
+# Introduction
+
+The Magistrate Judge's Order of March 4, 2010 (DE 480), denies Plaintiffs all discovery on Defendant's financial status and history, with the sole exception of Plaintiffs' document request for federal and state income tax returns. (Order, pp. 8-9). Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's Order to the extent it requires production of tax returns, and thereby seeks to deny Plaintiffs all discovery on the Defendant's net worth.
+
+The Magistrate Judge correctly held that the act of producing tax returns is not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because the existence of the tax returns is known to the government or is a foregone conclusion. (Order, p. 8). The case law is clear that the act of producing tax returns is not privileged. See United States v. Hubbell, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 530 U.S. 27, 35 (2000).
+
+Defendant further argues in the alternative that tax returns are protected from discovery in these cases because they are not relevant and there is no compelling need for this discovery. According to Defendant, there is a heightened burden on a party seeking to compel the production of tax returns in civil cases. A number of the district courts in the Eleventh Circuit have rejected such a heightened burden for discovery of tax returns. Rather, the broad relevance standard under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 is applicable, as in any other discovery matter. The Magistrate Jude was not in error in failing to apply a heightened standard. In any event, as Defendant recognizes, Plaintiffs seek recovery of punitive damages for Defendant's intentional torts under state law. Defendant's financial condition and history are plainly relevant to the issue of punitive damages. One must wonder how in good faith Defendant can contend that there is no compelling need for Plaintiffs to obtain Defendant's tax returns when Defendant has asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege in response to each and every net worth document request and interrogatory propounded by Plaintiffs.'
+
+For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs request that the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal be denied, and that the tax return materials responsive to Plaintiffs' document request no. 1 be ordered to be produced forthwith.
+
+1 Defendant similarly asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege as to all deposition questions relating to net worth.
+
+## Argument
+
+# 1. THE ACT OF PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE
+
+The Plaintiffs made the following document request, to which Defendant asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege:
+
+Request No. 1: All Federal and State income tax returns, including all W-2 forms, 1099 forms and schedules, for tax years 2003-2008.
+
+The Magistrate Judge rejected the Defendant's privilege assertion as to tax returns, holding that the act of producing tax returns was not testimonial because the government was obviously in possession of the documents and its prior knowledge of the tax returns was a foregone conclusion. (Order, pp. 8-9). In so holding, the Magistrate Judge applied the act of production doctrine set forth in Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976) and United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). As noted by the Magistrate Judge, "Defendant cannot reasonably and in good faith argue that in producing these documents to Plaintiff he will somehow be incriminating himself." (Order, p. 9). Yet Defendant, incredibly, argues just that. He asserts that production of the tax returns would "constitute a testimonial admission of the genuineness, the existence, and Epstein's control of such records, and thus presents a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination ..." (Appeal, p. 5).
+
+In Hubbell the Supreme Court made express reference to tax returns in discussing documents that cannot be protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege under the act of production doctrine:
+
+> Mlle fact that incriminating evidence may be the byproduct of obedience to a regulatory requirement, such as filing an income tax return, maintaining required records, or reporting an accident, does not clothe such required conduct with the testimonial privilege.
+
+120 U.S. at 2043, 530 U.S. at 35 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis supplied). Accord United States v. Hammes, 3 F.3d 1081, 1083 (7th Cir. 1993) (Is\* reject [defendant's] compulsory selfincrimination claim because the government may use voluntarily filed tax returns against a defendant without violating the Fifth Amendment"). See also Garner v. United States, 96 S.Ct. 1178, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) (holding that disclosures in tax returns are not compelled incriminations and may be used as evidence in criminal prosecution); Ebay, Inc. v. Digital Point Solutions, Inc., 2010 WL 147967 \*8 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (holding that a person cannot incriminate himself by turning over a document already in the government's possession)• Federal Savings and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Hardee, 686 F. Supp 885 (N.D. Fla. 1988) (holding that personal income tax returns and supporting schedules are not protected by the "act of production" doctrine under Fisher).
+
+As an alternative to finding that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply because the act of producing documents is not testimonial and communicative, courts have invoked the "required records" exception to the act of production doctrine. See Federal Saving & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Rodrigues 717 F. Supp. 1424, 1427 (N.D. Cal 1988) ('required records" exception is a distinct basis to deny Fifth Amendment privilege alternative to the "foregone conclusion" rationale under Fisher). The "required records" exception defeats the Fifth Amendment privilege where: "(1) because of the public aspect of the required records the individual admits little of significance by their production; and (2) by doing business in an area where the government requires record keeping, and individual may be deemed to have waived the Fifth Amendment privilege as to the production of those records." In re Grand Jury Subpoena 21 F.3d 226, 229 (8th Cir. 1994). The Magistrate Judge did not rely on the "required records" exception in rejecting Defendant's assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege to production of Defendant's tax
+
+returns. Nonetheless, Defendant contends that the "required records" exception does not apply to tax returns because they cannot be accessed by the public. This is wrong, however, as the "required records" exception requires only that there be "public aspects" to the documents at issue. Id. Numerous courts that have addressed this issue have found that tax returns have "public aspects". See Rodrigues, 717 F. Supp. at 1426-27 (citing cases)• accord Doe v. United States, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983). As a result, the "required records" exception applies to the production of tax returns. In Rodrigues, the Court denied the Fifth Amendment privilege for the act of producing tax returns under the "required records" exception, noting that "records filed with a public body pursuant to a valid regulatory scheme have been held to have public aspects." Id. at 1427. Accordingly, the fact that federal tax returns cannot be accessed by the public does not aid the Defendant. Accord Resolution Trust Corv. v. MI, 794 F. Supp. I, 3 (D.D.C. 1992).
+
+Thus, there are two alternative grounds for holding that Defendant's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege to production of tax returns is invalid: (1) the tax returns are in the possession of the government, their existence is a foregone conclusion, and there is no risk of "implicit authentication" by Defendant's production of these documents; or (2) tax returns fall within the "required records" exception to the act of production doctrine, and are thus not protected by the Fifth Amendment. Under either of these grounds, the Defendant's tax returns are not privileged and must be produced.
+
+Defendant also objects to the Magistrate Judge's decision on the basis that Plaintiffs' request is not limited to personal tax returns, but also encompasses "tax returns filed by any business in which Epstein has an interest in." (Appeal, p. 4). Defendant fails to recognize, however, that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the documents of a corporation or other business entity. Broswell v. United States, 108 S.Ct. 2284, 487 U.S. 99 (1988). It should be beyond dispute that all corporate records, including tax returns, in Defendant's possession, custody or control, are discoverable and not protected by the Fifth Amendment. 2
+
+# H. THERE IS NO HEIGHTENED BURDEN FOR DISCOVERY OF TAX RETURNS
+
+Defendant asserts that there is a heightened burden on a party seeking discovery of tax returns, requiring that party to show not only relevance, but also that "a compelling need for the tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available." (Appeal, p. 8). A number of district courts in Florida, however, have held that there is no heightened burden to obtain discovery of tax returns, and a party does not need to show a "compelling need." Preferred Care Partners Holding Corp. v. Humana, Inc., 2008 WL 4500258 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing cases relying upon Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 1997), in rejecting a heightened burden); accord Ruskin Co. v. Greenbeck Fan Corp. 2009 WL 383349 (S.D. Fla. 2009). Significantly, in both Preferred Care and Ruskin the Court affirmed the decision of a Magistrate Judge, holding that, despite an arguable split of authority, the Magistrate Judge's decision was not "contrary to law." Id. Likewise, the Magistrate Judge's decision in this case concerning production of tax returns is consistent with authority in this District and the Eleventh Circuit, and thus should be affirmed.
+
+2 As discussed below, Defendant's financial status and history are relevant to the issue of punitive damages. It appears from evidence in this case that Defendant Epstein earns and funnels income among a labyrinth of business entities. The financial status and history of these closely held entities is essential and necessary discovery on the Defendant's net worth.
+
+## III. EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S FINANCIAL STATUS AND HISTORY IS RELEVANT TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES. AMONG OTHER ISSUES
+
+Defendant does not go so far as to contend that the discovery of his tax returns is not relevant under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. Defendant only argues that the Magistrate Judge did not address the relevancy standard in her Order. (Appeal, p. 8). As a result, Defendant does nothing to show that the Magistrate Judge's Order as to tax returns is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. In any event, it is abundantly clear that Defendant's financial status and history are relevant to punitive damages, among other issues in these cases, and in this regard the Defendant's tax returns are pertinent and discoverable. Tennant v. Charlton 377 so.2d 1169 (Fla. 1979) (holding that party may obtain tax returns for purposes of net worth discovery on issue of punitive damages). See also State v. O'Malley, 53 S.W. 3d 623 (Mo. App. 2001) ("Mt is well settled that when a plaintiff seeks punitive damages against a defendant, evidence of the defendant's financial status is both relevant and admissible"); Interstate Narrow Fabrics. Inc. v. Century USA. Inc., 2004 WL 444 570 (M.D. N.C. 2004) (holding that tax returns are relevant to the jury's determination of the amount of punitive damages to award); E.J. Lavino & Co. v. Universal Health Services. Inc. 1991 WL 275767 (ED. Pa. 1991) ("[m]ost courts that have considered this issue have held that a plaintiff seeking punitive damages may discovery information pertaining to a defendant's net worth").
+
+Even assuming that the "compelling need" standard were applicable for discovery of tax returns, clearly in this case there is a compelling need.3 Defendant has provided no net worth
+
+3 & quot;[T]he burden to identify an alternative source of the information lies within the resisting party." Interstate Narrow 2004 WL 444570 at \*2. Epstein has not even attempted to show that information from his tax returns is available from another source in light of his blanket Fifth Amendment privilege assertion to all net worth discovery.
+
+discovery, asserting a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege. It is plain, therefore, that the information contained in the tax returns is not otherwise available. Defendant nonetheless contends that there exists an "alternative" - not to discovery of the necessary information, but through his offer to "stipulate" to a net worth of over \$50 million. Of course, a stipulation requires the consent of the parties, and Plaintiffs have never even been presented with a proposed stipulation; nor is it clear why Plaintiffs would ever stipulate to a \$50 million floor on Defendant's net worth when all indications are that Defendant's net worth is exponentially higher. In any event, it seems beyond dispute that Defendant's tax returns are relevant and discoverable, either under a straight relevance test under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 or a heightened "compelling need" standard.
+
+# Conclusion
+
+Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge's Order as to Defendant's production of tax returns in response to Plaintiffs' document request no. I is not clearly erroneous and not contrary to law. As a result, the Magistrate Judge's Order as to tax returns should be affirmed. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the documents responsive to Plaintiffs' document request no. I be ordered to be produced forthwith.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245)
+
+ssm@sexabuseattorney.com
+
+Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980)
+
+ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
+
+MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A.
+
+Attorneys for Plaintiffs
+
+18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
+
+Miami, Florida 33160
+
+Tel: (305) 931-2200
+
+Fax: (305) 931-0877
+
+#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I hereby certify that on March 29, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+/s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein
+
+# SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+
+iaoldberger@agwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq.
+
+rcritton@bciclaw.com
+
+James
+
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+Isidro Manuel
+
+isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack
+
+jph@searcylaw.com U
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell
+
+KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike
+
+MPike@bciclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell
+
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits
+
+lawyerwillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg
+
+rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748939/EFTA02748939.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748939/EFTA02748939.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f4d4e82cff41e3130e4da5816066f6176a473fd4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748939/EFTA02748939.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,665 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748939.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 11,
+ "chars": 15722,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.74,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINITFFS JANE DOES 2-8' MEMORANDUM IN \nOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION \nAND RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE \nJUDGE'S ORDER ON NET WORTH DISCOVERY (DE 480)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 108.93599999999999,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 504.6567077636719,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 504.6567077636719,
+ 445.56353759765625
+ ],
+ [
+ 108.93599999999999,
+ 445.56353759765625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Introduction",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 270.504,
+ 540.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 341.27581787109375,
+ 540.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 341.27581787109375,
+ 554.6030120849609
+ ],
+ [
+ 270.504,
+ 554.6030120849609
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Argument",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 276.624,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 335.11187744140625,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 335.11187744140625,
+ 86.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 276.624,
+ 86.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "1. THE ACT OF PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS IS NOT \nPROTECTED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 129.744,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 485.69677734375,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 485.69677734375,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 129.744,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "H. THERE IS NO HEIGHTENED BURDEN \nFOR DISCOVERY OF TAX RETURNS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 177.48,
+ 153.89999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 434.8689880371094,
+ 153.89999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 434.8689880371094,
+ 182.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 177.48,
+ 182.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "III. EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S FINANCIAL \nSTATUS AND HISTORY IS RELEVANT TO \nPUNITIVE DAMAGES. AMONG OTHER ISSUES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 164.62800000000001,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 460.9920654296875,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 460.9920654296875,
+ 113.68353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 164.62800000000001,
+ 113.68353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Conclusion",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 274.788,
+ 347.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 337.7822265625,
+ 347.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 337.7822265625,
+ 362.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 274.788,
+ 362.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 226.44,
+ 71.9815673828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 71.9815673828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 85.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 226.44,
+ 85.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST \nDOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN \nUnited States District Court, Southern District of Florida",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 156.06,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.2369079589844,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.2369079589844,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 156.06,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 72
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 70
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 54
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748939"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748950/EFTA02748950.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748950/EFTA02748950.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e1cf03676f8ccd668518e10dcd73138331339fd3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748950/EFTA02748950.md
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAIN'TIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS' SWORN STATEMENTS TO FBI INVESTIGATORS
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), submits his Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs', Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 ("Plaintiff?) Motion to Compel Production of Jane Doe Nos. 2- 7's Sworn Statements to FBI Investigators ("Motion") (DE #489) and states:
+
+- 1. On March 17, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their Motion seeking their sworn statements made to the FBI pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552a(b)(11),I
+- 2. Plaintiffs' Motion is premature as the procedures set forth in 28 C.F.R. §16.21, et seq., in requesting records from the FBI have not been followed. The Court should therefore deny Plaintiffs' Motion.
+- 3. Plaintiff? subpoena to the FBI for the requested information (Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Motion) is dated March 12, 2010, five days before Plaintiffs filed their Motion.
+
+In the companion case Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893, Jane Doe £tied a similar motion (DE #486). Epstein adopts the arguments in his Response in Opposition to said motion (DE #510) and incorporates them herein by reference.
+
+4. The FBI is required to follow a certain protocol in responding to a subpoena for records and has not had the opportunity to do so since Plaintiffs served the subpoena days before filing their Motion. See 28 C.F.R. §16.21, es seq.
+
+5. Next, Plaintiffs' assertion that "[t]he FBI informed Plaintiffs' counsel that it requires further authorization in order to release the Plaintiffs' own sworn statements..." is disingenuous. See Motion at 2. There is nothing in the record, either by way of a paper filed by the FBI, affidavit of an FBI representative or even a letter or e-mail, to corroborate Plaintiffs' statement.
+
+6. And it is doubtful the FBI made such a statement as 28 C.F.R. §16.22(a) provides that "no employee or former employee of the Department of Justice shall, in response to a demand, produce any material contained in the files of the Department ... without prior approval of the proper Department official in accordance with §§16.24 and 16.25 of this part." Section §16.24 requires the matter to be referred to a U.S. Attorney and mandates specific procedures to be followed in determining whether and under what circumstances the requested information should be disclosed. Moreover, the U.S. Attorney must request and receive a summary of the information sought and its relevance to the proceeding. See 28 C.F.R. §16.22(d). Only after these procedures are followed can the FBI and the U.S. Attorney produce responsive materials.
+
+7. Moreover, 28 C.F.R. §16.26(a), outlines various factors the Department must consider in determining whether to disclose records; §16.26(b) provides circumstances under which disclosure will not be made.
+
+8. And even if the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion, the FBI and U.S. Attorney may "respectfully decline to comply" if the requirements of 28 C.F.R. §§16.24 and 16.25 have not been met. See 28 C.F.R. §16.28.
+
+9. Plaintiffs, by their Motion, are attempting to short-circuit the above-described procedure.
+
+10. The Court should therefore deny Plaintiffs' Motion as it is premature and since the procedures and requirements outlined in 28 C.P.R. §16.21, et seg have not yet been satisfied.
+
+WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests the Court deny Plaintiffs', JANE DOE NOS. 2-7's, Motion (DE #489) and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.
+
+> By: s/Michael J. Pike Robert D. Critton, Jr. Florida Bar #224162 Michael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 31'1 day of March 2009.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: s/Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit@bciclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mpike®bc1claw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+**Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein**
+**Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/J** [REDACTED]
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+Suite 2218
+Miami, FL 33160
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+[ssm@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ssm@sexabuseattorney.com)
+[ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs*
+*In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994*
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+561-659-8300
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+[jagesq@bellsouth.net](mailto:jagesq@bellsouth.net)
+
+*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein*
+
+[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED] Fistos & Lehrman, PL
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+[brad@pathtojustice.com](mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893*
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+*Pro Hac Vice*
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+801-585-5202
+801-585-6833 Fax
+[cassellp@law.utah.edu](mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu)
+
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+
+Isidro M. [REDACTED] Esq.
+[REDACTED] Law Firm, P.A.
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561-832-7732
+561-832-7137 F
+[isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net](mailto:isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748950/EFTA02748950.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748950/EFTA02748950.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b40a16714cdfb7f822f3f47fdc16050cef46d74
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748950/EFTA02748950.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,269 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748950.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 6152,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 6.36,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.48800000000006,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.48800000000006,
+ 102.06
+ ],
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 102.06
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAIN'TIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL \nPRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS' SWORN STATEMENTS TO FBI INVESTIGATORS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 78.94800000000001,
+ 364.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.3919067382812,
+ 364.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.3919067382812,
+ 394.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 78.94800000000001,
+ 394.47
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 350.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 369.42791748046875,
+ 350.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 369.42791748046875,
+ 368.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 368.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/J [REDACTED]",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 190.332,
+ 77.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 424.72799999999995,
+ 77.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 424.72799999999995,
+ 118.25999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 190.332,
+ 118.25999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 261
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748950"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748954/EFTA02748954.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748954/EFTA02748954.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55ac91d14aedcd04940311ec5049e3b6d9f906a7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748954/EFTA02748954.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## OMNIBUS ORDER
+
+THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion For Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order Dated February 4, 2010 (D.E. #477); and Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Magistrate's Order Dated March 4, 2010 (D.E. #488). For the following reasons said Motions are viewed by this Court as requests for reconsideration and are denied. Should Defendant wish to file a formal appeal to the District Court with regard to this Order and/or any or both of the underlying Orders, Defendant may do so within ten (10) days from the date hereof.
+
+In the first Motion (D.E.#477) Epstein seeks reversal of certain portions of the undersigned's Order entered February 4, 2010 which granted in part and denied in part Jane Doe's Motion to Compel production of various materials filed July 20, 2009. Specifically Epstein takes issue with that portion of the Order which compelled production of discovery from state and federal prosecutors in the criminal case against him, his recent tax returns, and his passport. The Court stands behind each of these decisions for the reasons stated in its Order and is not persuaded by any of Epstein's arguments to the contrary.
+
+The first category of documents (Requests 7, 9, and 10 ) consist of documents the government itself gave to Epstein. Epstein's primary objection was based on the Fifth Amendment, which the undersigned overruled on the basis of the "foregone conclusion" doctrine, which provides there can be no self-incrimination by production where the "existence and location of the documents...are a 'foregone conclusion' and [the claimantl...adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information by conceding that he in fact has the documents." In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 383 F.3d 905, 910 (91" Cir. 2004). Other objections raised by Epstein included attorney-client, work product, and privacy concerns, each of which were also addressed and rejected. Epstein's final argument, raised now for the first time, concerns settlement discussion confidentiality. Because Epstein never presented this argument to the undersigned, it is inappropriate to raise it now for the first time.
+
+v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009). Even were the Court to consider the argument on its merits, for the reasons explained in Jane Doe's Response Memorandum (D.E. #485), pp.4-9, the Court finds said argument without merit.
+
+The second and third category of documents concern production of Epstein's recent tax returns and passport. The undersigned likewise finds no basis for reversal of this decision. Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2d Cir. 2008)(noting that tax records and passports which are considered by the courts to be "required records," are as a matter of law not subject to Fifth Amendment protection). Epstein cites certain cases from the Second Circuit which provide for a "compelling need" standard to obtain tax returns. This claim of a higher standard applying to tax returns, however, has been rejected in the Eleventh Circuit. See Maddow v. Proctor & Gamble Co., Inc., 107 F.3d 846, 853 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Certain Real Property Known as and Located at 6469 Polo Pointe Way, 444 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1263-1264 (S.D. Fla. 2006). Accordingly, Epstein's Motion for reconsideration is denied.
+
+In the second Motion (D.E. #488) Epstein seeks reversal of a portion of the undersigned's Order entered March 4, 2010. The March 4, 2010 Order concerns Defendant's blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege in response to Plaintiff's interrogatories and production requests seeking net worth discovery. The Order upheld each of Epstein's objections except for those raised in response to
+
+Production Request Number 1 seeking all federal and state tax returns, including all W-2 forms and 1099 forms and schedules for the five year period from 2003-2008. Epstein's objections in this regard were the same objections raised in response to the same request contained in Jane Doe's July 20, 2009 Request for Production, which this Court ordered previously ordered produced over Epstein's objections and a request for reconsideration.
+
+The same reasons set forth above in connection with the undersigned's February 4, 2010 Order denying Epstein's request to reconsider her decision compelling production of his tax returns apply equally here, and shall not be repeated. Suffice it to say that for those reasons, Epstein's Motion for Reconsideration of the Order entered March 4, 2010, is denied. In accordance with the above and foregoing, it is hereby,
+
+ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
+
+(1) Defendant Epstein's Motion For Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order Dated February 4, 2010 (D.E. #477) is DENIED. Should Defendant wish to file a formal appeal to this Order and/or to the underlying February 4, 2010 Order, Defendant may do so within ten (10) days from the date hereof; and
+
+(2) Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Magistrate's Order Dated March 4, 2010 (D.E. #488) is DENIED. Should Defendant wish to file a formal appeal to this Order and/or to the underlying March 4,2010 Order, Defendant may do so within ten (10) days from the date hereof .
+
+DONE AND ORDERED this April 1,2010, in , at West Palm Beach, Florida.
+
+> LINNEA R. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
+
+CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748954/EFTA02748954.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748954/EFTA02748954.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0cff2f6b3198d73d60585d9c6c5f0993003d444d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748954/EFTA02748954.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,245 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748954.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 5,
+ "chars": 5843,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.94,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.5008544921875,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.5008544921875,
+ 100.18353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 100.18353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "OMNIBUS ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 250.92000000000002,
+ 410.6700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 360.8534240722656,
+ 410.6700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 360.8534240722656,
+ 426.06353759765625
+ ],
+ [
+ 250.92000000000002,
+ 426.06353759765625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748954"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748959/EFTA02748959.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748959/EFTA02748959.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..043540c1aebd6ebdb1c287f595869ac2ff36842e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748959/EFTA02748959.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION IN RULE 4 APPEAL(S) RELATED TO THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDERS ENTERED AT DOCKET ENTRIES 462, 480, AND 513
+
+This matter came before the Court on Defendant's, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Motion to Exceed Page Limitation in his rule 4 Appeal(s) related to the Magistrate's Orders entered at DE 462, DE 480, and DE 513. Having considered Defendant's Motion to exceed page limitation, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
+
+Defendant's motion is GRANTED. Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal may exceed the specified page limitation by 10-15 pages.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010.
+
+Kenneth A. Marra United States District Judge
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748959/EFTA02748959.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748959/EFTA02748959.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8bf5bd1bd8411af4f82484b54017c8e0d2cd8496
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748959/EFTA02748959.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748959.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 958,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.83,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 415.5064392089844,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 415.5064392089844,
+ 100.863037109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 100.863037109375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE \nLIMITATION IN RULE 4 APPEAL(S) RELATED TO THE MAGISTRATE'S \nORDERS ENTERED AT DOCKET ENTRIES 462, 480, AND 513",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 102.20400000000001,
+ 361.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 518.98681640625,
+ 361.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 518.98681640625,
+ 404.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 102.20400000000001,
+ 404.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748959"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748960/EFTA02748960.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748960/EFTA02748960.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a180bca11a3402863229132f5c55a9329cae25fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748960/EFTA02748960.md
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ME
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+# DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION IN RULE 4 APPEAL(S) RELATED TO THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDERS ENTERED AT DOCKET ENTRIES 462, 480, AND 513
+
+Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, and Pursuant to Rule 4, Review and Appeal — Southern District, and other applicable rules as well as this court's discretion, respectfully moves this Court for an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Exceed the Page Limitation in his Rule 4 Appeal(s) related to to Magistrate's Orders entered at DE 462, DE 480 and DE 513. As good cause in support of granting the motion, Defendant states:
+
+1. This Court entered an Order on February 4, 2010 (DE 462) stating that Epstein must provide documents responsive to request to numbers 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 within 14 days from the date of said order. Defendant filed aMotion for Reconsideration and Rule 4 Appeal on February 26, 2010 (DE 477).
+
+2. On March 4, 2010, this Court entered an Order related to Net Worth Discovery (DE 480) requesting similar information addressed in DE 462. Defendant filed aMotion for Reconsideration and Rule 4 Appeal on March 15, 2010.
+
+3. On April 1, 2010, this Court entered an Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (DE 513). However, the Order allows the Defendant to file formal appeals with the District Court within ten (10) days.
+
+4. In order to present the Defendant's appeals in an organized and understandable manner, the 20 page limitation is required to be exceeded by approximately 10-15 pages.
+
+5. The Defendant does not believe that Plaintiffs' counsel will have an objection to this request.
+
+Wherefore, the undersigned respectfully requests the relief sought herein, and for such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper.
+
+#### Local Rule 7.1 Statement
+
+Counsel for the movant attempted to confer with counsel for the Plaintiffs', however at the time of this filing had not received a response.
+
+> By: /s/ Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR. Florida Bar #224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+### Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by electronic mail (e-mail) on this Z day of April, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: Is/ Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit®bc1claw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mnike@bciclaw.coro BURMAN, CRMON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
+
+Stuart S. Mennelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ssm@sexabuseattomey,corn ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.corn Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases No:. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 0840994
+
+Brad Esq. e, Weissing, el. Fistos PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 lyrad@Dathtoiustice.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 0840893
+
+Paul O. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 jagesq@bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 riosefsberg@rodhurst.com kezella,nodhurst.com Counsel for Plaintiff
+
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax cassellp(alaw.utah.edu Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe
+
+Isidro M. Esq. /MLIM, P.A. iura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748960/EFTA02748960.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748960/EFTA02748960.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2a8000aa6e0762fb429a6415c1ab44a06f70653f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748960/EFTA02748960.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748960.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 4451,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.93,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.9218444824219,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.9218444824219,
+ 110.16000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 110.16000000000003
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION IN \nRULE 4 APPEAL(S) RELATED TO THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDERS \nENTERED AT DOCKET ENTRIES 462, 480, AND 513",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 107.71199999999999,
+ 370.17
+ ],
+ [
+ 511.3739929199219,
+ 370.17
+ ],
+ [
+ 511.3739929199219,
+ 413.90999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 107.71199999999999,
+ 413.90999999999997
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Local Rule 7.1 Statement",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 245.412,
+ 442.26000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 379.0010986328125,
+ 442.26000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 379.0010986328125,
+ 455.22
+ ],
+ [
+ 245.412,
+ 455.22
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 249.696,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 363.8067626953125,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 363.8067626953125,
+ 111.9281005859375
+ ],
+ [
+ 249.696,
+ 111.9281005859375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 456.03
+ ],
+ [
+ 368.5079650878906,
+ 456.03
+ ],
+ [
+ 368.5079650878906,
+ 469.670654296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 469.670654296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 237
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 233
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 244
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 73
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748960"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748964/EFTA02748964.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748964/EFTA02748964.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d49c80cdd3445c061730508f06ee037f436ef91
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748964/EFTA02748964.md
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA ✓
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+/
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+/
+
+## ORDER
+
+THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's "Motion to Exceed Page Limitation in Rule 4 Appeal(s) Related to the Magistrate's Orders Entered at Docket Entries 462, 480, and 513." [DE 514]. In his Motion, Defendant seeks to exceed the page limitation as follows: "In order to present the Defendant's appeals in an organized and understandable manner, the 20 page limitation is required to be exceeded by approximately 10-15 pages." [DE 514 at ¶4]. Upon consideration of the motion and the record, it is hereby
+
+ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Exceed Page Limitation [DE 514] is GRANTED as follows: Defendant may file one consolidated appeal of the Magistrate's
+
+Judge's Orders (DE's 462, 480, and 513) which exceeds the 20-page limitation by approximately 10-15 pages.
+
+DONE AND ORDERED in at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
+
+Florida, this 5i day of April, 2010.
+
+r2 -
+
+KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge
+
+Copies to: all counsel of record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748964/EFTA02748964.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748964/EFTA02748964.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fe532547d5ad9f7b529c9a8ae41c5803c53cc031
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748964/EFTA02748964.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748964.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1298,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.71,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.5581359863281,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.5581359863281,
+ 100.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 100.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 425.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.7633361816406,
+ 425.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.7633361816406,
+ 440.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 440.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748964"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748966/EFTA02748966.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748966/EFTA02748966.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0094c32ee138eab74426795869fd32c3cd896bec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748966/EFTA02748966.md
@@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 10-80309-CIV-
+
+JANE DOE No. 103,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFERY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+### DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO D1SMISS,COLNT VI & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT & TO STRIKE DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 103'S COMPLAINT Mated 2/23/20101
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned counsel, moves to dismiss Count Six of Plaintiff JANE DOE I 03's Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, as specified herein. Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2009); Local Gen. Rule 7.1 (S.D. Ha. 2009). Defendant further moves for More Definite Statement and to Strike. Rule 12(e) and (f), In support of his motion, Defendant states:
+
+The Complaint attempts to allege 6 counts, all of which are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 - Civil Remedies for Personal Injuries. Count Six is subject to dismissal because the predicate act relied upon by Plaintiff for her claims did not come into effect until July 27, 2006, well after the conduct alleged by Plaintiff occurred. The More Definite Statement requested is for Plaintiff to allege her date of birth in that her being a minor has significance in the claims she alleges.
+
+### Supporting Memorandum of Law
+
+### Principles of Statutory Interpretation
+
+It is well settled that in interpreting a statute, the court's inquiry begins with the plain and unambiguous language of the statutory text. CBS, Inc. v. Prime Time 24 Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Castroneves 2009 WL 528251, \*3 (S.D. Fla. 2009), citing Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2008); and v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("When interpreting a statute, [a court's] inquiry begins with the text."). "The Court must first look to the plain meaning of the words, and scrutinize the statute's `language, structure, and purpose.' Id. In addition, in construing a statute, a court is to presume that the legislature said what it means and means what it said, and not add language or give some absurd or strained interpretation. As stated in CBS. Inc. supra at 1228 — "Those who ask courts to give effect to perceived legislative intent by interpreting statutory language contrary to its plain and unambiguous meaning are in effect asking courts to alter that language, and Iciourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of [the] provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187." See also Dodd v. U.S., 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124 .
+
+Title 18 of the U.S.C. is entitled "Crimes and Criminal Procedure." §2255 is contained in "Pan I. Crimes, Chap. 110. Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children." 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2002), is entitled Civil remedy for personal injuries, and provides:
+
+- (a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers
+
+The above quoted version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 was the same beginning in 1999 until amended in 2006, effective July 27, 2006.
+
+personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorneys fee. Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than \$50,000 in value.
+
+- (b) Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in the case of a person under a legal disability, not later than three years after the disability.
+
+See endnote 1 hereto for statutory text as amended in 2006, effective July 27, 2006. Prior to the 2006 amendments, the version of the statute quoted above was in effect beginning in 1999.1
+
+All of Plaintiff's allegations of abuse occurred between January 2004 and May 2005 (par. 18), well prior to 18 U.S.C. §2255 being amended.
+
+## Motion to Dismiss
+
+Plaintiff's reliance on the amended version of 18 U.S.C. 42255, such reliance is improper. The version of Defendant's position that 18 U.S.C. §2255 in effect prior to the 2006 amendments applies to this action, and therefore Count Six is required to be dismissed as it relies on a predicate act that was not in effect at the time of the alleged conduct.23
+
+Plaintiff does not specifically allege in her Complaint on which version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 she is relying. However, in Count Six of her Complaint, ¶50, she alleges that Defendant "knowingly engaged in a child exploitation enterprise, as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2252A(g)(2), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(g)(1)." §2252A is one of the specified predicate acts under 18 U.S.C. §2255. However, subsection (g) of §2252 was
+
+2 Points (2) and (3) are addressed together as the legal arguments overlap.
+
+3 In other §2255 actions filed against Defendant, Defendant has previously asserted the position that 18 U.S.C. §2255's creates a single cause of action on behalf of a plaintiff against a defendant, as opposed to multiple causes of action on a per violation basis or as opposed to an allowance of a multiplication of the statutory presumptive minimum damages or "actual damages." EPSTEIN asserts his position regarding the single recovery of damages in order to properly preserve all issues pertaining to the proper application of §2255 for appeal. EPSTEIN will fully honor his obligations as set forth in the Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney's Office; principally, as related to the claims made in this case by Jane Doe 103, the obligations as set forth in paragraph 8 of that Agreement. In particular, EPSTEIN will not contest the allegation that he committed at least one predicate offense as alleged by Jane Doe 103.
+
+not added to the statute until 2006. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff is relying on the amended version of 18 U.S.C. §2255, such reliance is improper and Count Six is required to be dismissed as it relies on a statutory predicate act that did not exist at the time of the alleged conduct.
+
+The statute in effect during the time the alleged conduct occurred is 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2005) — the version in effect prior to the 2006 amendment, eff. Jul. 27, 2006, (quoted above), and having an effective date of 1999 through July 26, 2006. See endnote I hereto. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendant's conduct occurred during the time period from the age of 17, January 2004 until approximately May 2005. Complaint, ¶¶17, 18. Thus, the version in effect in 2004-2005 of 18 U.S.C. §2255 applies.
+
+It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994):
+
+... the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence, and embodies a legal doctrine centuries older than our Republic. Elementary considerations of fairness dictate that individuals should have an opportunity to know what the law is and to conform their conduct accordingly; settled expectations should not be lightly disrupted.n418 For that reason, the "principle that the legal effect of conduct should ordinarily be assessed under the law that existed when the conduct took place has timeless and universal appeal." Kaiser, 494 U.S., at 855, 110 S.Ct., at 1586 (SCALIA, J., concurring). In a free, dynamic society, creativity in both commercial and artistic endeavors is fostered by a rule of law that gives people confidence about the legal consequences of their actions.
+
+FN18. See General Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181, 191, 112 S.Ct. 1105, 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 328 (1992) ("Retroactive legislation presents problems of unfairness that are more serious than those posed by prospective legislation, because it can deprive citizens of legitimate expectations and upset settled transactions"); [Further citations omitted].
+
+It is therefore not surprising that the antiretroactivity principle finds expression in several provisions of our Constitution. The Ex Post Facto Clause flatly prohibits retroactive application of penal legislation?" Article I, § 10, cl. 1, prohibits States
+
+from passing another type of retroactive legislation, laws "impairing the Obligation of Contracts." The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause prevents the Legislature (and other government actors) from depriving private persons of vested property rights except for a "public use" and upon payment of "just compensation." The prohibitions on "Bills of Attainder" in Art. I, §§ 9-10, prohibit legislatures from singling out disfavored persons and meting out summary punishment for past conduct. See, e.g., *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722, 14 L.Ed.2d 484 (1965). The Due Process Clause also protects the interests in fair notice and repose that may be compromised by retroactive legislation; a justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. *Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.*, 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976).
+
+FN19. Article I contains two *Ex Post Facto* Clauses, one directed to Congress (§ 9, cl. 3), the other to the States (§ 10, cl. 1). We have construed the Clauses as applicable only to penal legislation. See *Calder v. Bull*, 3 Dall. 386, 390-391, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).
+
+These provisions demonstrate that retroactive statutes raise particular concerns. The Legislature's unmatched powers allow it to sweep away settled expectations suddenly and without individualized consideration. Its responsivity to political pressures poses a risk that it may be tempted to use retroactive legislation as a means of retribution against unpopular groups or individuals. As Justice Marshall observed in his opinion for \*\*1498 the Court in *Weaver v. Graham*, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981), the *Ex Post Facto* Clause not only ensures that individuals have "fair warning" about the effect of criminal statutes, but also "restricts governmental power by restraining arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation." *Id.*, at 28-29, 101 S.Ct., at 963-964 (citations omitted).FN20
+
+FN20. See *Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co.*, 488 U.S. 469, 513-514, 109 S.Ct. 706, 732, 102 L.Ed.2d 854 (1989) ("Legislatures are primarily policymaking bodies that promulgate rules to govern future conduct. The constitutional prohibitions against the enactment of *ex post facto* laws and bills of attainder reflect a valid concern about the use of the political process to punish or characterize past conduct of private citizens. It is the judicial system, rather than the legislative process, that is best equipped to identify past wrongdoers and to fashion remedies that will create the conditions that presumably would have existed had no wrong been committed") (STEVENS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); *James v. United States*, 366 U.S. 213, 247, n. 3, 81 S.Ct. 1052, 1052, n. 3, 6 L.Ed.2d 246 (1961) (retroactive punitive measures may reflect "a purpose not to prevent dangerous conduct generally but to impose by legislation a penalty against specific persons or classes of persons").
+
+These well entrenched constitutional protections and presumptions against retroactive application of legislation establish that 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2005) in effect at the time of the alleged conduct applies to the instant action, and not the amended version.
+
+Not only is there no clear express intent stating that the statute is to apply retroactively, but applying the current version of the statute, as amended in 2006, would be in clear violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution as it would be applied to events occurring before its enactment and would increase the penalty or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. I. U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798).
+
+The United States Constitution provides that "[n]o Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" by Congress. U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3. A law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause if it " sappli[es] to events occurring before its enactment ... [and] disadvantage[s] the offender affected by it' by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime." Lynce v. Mathis 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (quoting Weaver v. Graham 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)).
+
+U.S. v. Siegel,153 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 1998).
+
+The statute, as amended in 2006, contains no language stating that the application is to be retroactive. Thus, there is no manifest intent that the statute is to apply retroactively, and, accordingly, the statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct is to apply. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably suggest that it has any application to conduct that occurred at an earlier date.").
+
+This statute was enacted as part of the Federal Criminal Statutes targeting sexual predators and sex crimes against children. H.R. 3494, "Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998;" House Report No. 105-557, 11, 1998 U.S.C.A.N. 678, 679 (1998). Quoting from the "Background and Need For Legislation" portion of the House Report No. 105-557, 11-16, H.R. 3494, of which 18 U.S.C. §2255 is included, is described as "the most comprehensive package of new crimes and increased penalties ever developed in response to crimes against children, particularly assaults facilitated by computers." Further showing that §2255 was enacted as a criminal penalty or punishment, "Title II — Punishing Sexual Predators," Sec. 206, from House Report No. 105-557, 5-6, specifically includes reference to the remedy created under §2255 as an additional means of punishing sexual predators, along with other penalties and punishments. Senatorial Comments in amending §2255 in 2006 confirm that the creation of the presumptive minimum damage amount is meant as an additional penalty against those who sexually exploit or abuse children. 2006 WL 2034118, 152 Cong. Rec. S8012- 02. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id.
+
+The cases of U.S. v. Siegel, supra (11'^ Cir. 1998), and U.S. v. M, supra (3d Cir. 1998), also support Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 would be in clear violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. In Siegel, the Eleventh Circuit found that the Ex Post Facto Clause barred application of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) to the defendant whose criminal conduct occurred before the effective date of the statute, 18 U.S.C. §3664(f)(1)(A), even though the guilty plea and sentencing proceeding occurred after the effective date of the statute. On July 19, 1996, the defendant Siegel pleaded guilty to various charges under 18 U.S.C. §371 and §1956(a)(1)(A), (conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, bank fraud, and laundering of money instruments; and money laundering). He was sentenced on March 7, 1997. As part of his sentence, Siegel was ordered to pay \$1,207,000.00 in restitution under the MVRA which became effective on April 24, 1996. Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 1229-1236. The 1996 amendments to MVRA required that the district court
+
+must order restitution in the full amount of the victim's loss without consideration of the defendant's ability to pay. Prior to the enactment of the MVRA and under the former 18 U.S.C. §3664(a) of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (VWPA), Pub.l. No. 97-291, 96 Stat. 1248, the court was required to consider, among other factors, the defendant's ability to pay in determining the amount of restitution.
+
+When the MVRA was enacted in 1996, Congress stated that the amendments to the VWPA "shall, to the extent constitutionally permissible, be effective for sentencing proceedings in cases in which the defendant is convicted on or after the date of enactment of this Act [Apr. 24, 1996]." Siegel, supra at 1258. The alleged crimes occurred between February, 1988 to May, 1990. The Court agreed with the defendant's position that 1996 MVRA "should not be applied in reviewing the validity of the court's restitution order because to do so would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const. art I, §9, cl. 3."
+
+The Ex Post Facto analysis made by the Eleventh Circuit in Siegel is applicable to this action. In resolving the issue in favor of the defendant, the Court first considered whether a restitution order is a punishment. Id., at 1259. In determining that restitution was a punishment, the Court noted that §3663A(a)(1) of Title 18 expressly describes restitution as a "penalty." In addition, the Court also noted that "[a]lthough not in the context of an ex post facto determination, ... restitution is a 'criminal penalty meant to have strong deterrent and rehabilitative effect.' United States v. Twitty, 107 F.3d 1482, 1493 n. 12 (11th Cir.1997)." Second, the Court considered "whether the imposition of restitution under the MVRA is an increased penalty as prohibited by the Ex Post Facto Clause." Id., at 1259. In determining that the application of the 1996 MVRA would
+
+indeed run afoul of the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause, the Court agreed with the majority of the Circuits that restitution under the 1996 MVRA was an increased penalty.4 "The effect of the MVRA can be detrimental to a defendant. Previously, after considering the defendant's financial condition, the court had the discretion to order restitution in an amount less than the loss sustained by the victim. Under the MVRA, however, the court must order restitution to each victim in the full amount." Id, at 1260. See also U.S. v. M, 162 F.2d 87 (3rd Circuit 1998).
+
+As discussed above, 18 U.S.C. §2255 was enacted as part of the criminal statutory scheme to punish and penalize those who sexually exploit and abuse minors, and thus, the Ex Post Fact Clause prohibits a retroactive application of the 2006 amended version.
+
+Notwithstanding the above legal analysis, in the recent case of Individual Known to Defendant As 08MIST096.JPG and 08mist067.ipg v. Falso, 2009 WL 4807537 (N.D. N.Y. Dec. 9, 2009), United States District Court for the Northern District of New York addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by the title ... and the fact that the statute aims to provide compensation to individuals who suffered personal injury as a result of criminal conduct against them." The New York Court in analyzing whether §2255 violated the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, concluded that although
+
+The Eleventh Circuit, in holding that "the MVRA cannot be applied to a person whose criminal conduct occurred prior to April 24, 1996," was "persuaded by the majority of districts on this issue." "Restitution is a criminal penalty carrying with it characteristics of criminal punishment." Simi, supra at 1260. The Eleventh Circuit is in agreement with the Second, Third, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits. See U.S. v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1289-90 (11th Cir. 2000).
+
+the behavior to which §2255 is criminal, it did not find that the "primary aim" was "retribution and deterrence." "The statute serves civil goals." The "primary aim" is "the compensation for personal injuries sustained as a result of criminal conduct."
+
+Therefore, because Jane Doe 103 has invoked the provisions of the criminal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between EPSTEIN and USAO (see paragraphs 25 and 26 of complaint), plaintiff cannot avoid the full protection of the rule of lenity and due process to which EPSTEIN is entitled in the context of these unique factual circumstances.
+
+Although there does not exist any definitive ruling of whether the damages awarded under §2255 are meant as criminal punishment or a civil damages award, Defendant is still entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies.
+
+As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,5
+
+When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the events in suit, the court's first task is to determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach. ►f **Congress has done so, of course, there is no need to resort to judicial default rules. When, however, the statute contains no such express command, the court must determine whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, i.e., whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. If the statute would operate retroactively, our traditional presumption teaches that it does not govern absent clear congressional intent favoring such a result.**
+
+**Here, there is no clear expression of intent regarding the 2006 Act's application to conduct occurring well before its enactment. See discussion of House Bill Reports and Congressional background above herein.**
+
+**5 In Landgraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined that statutory text in question, §102, was subject to the presumption against statutory retroactivity.**
+
+As stated in Landgraf, "the extent of a party's liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored." Courts have consistently refused to apply a statute which substantially increases a party's liability to conduct occurring before the statute's enactment. Landgraf, supra at 284-85. Even if plaintiff were to argue that retroactive application of the new statute "would vindicate its purpose more fully," even that consideration is not enough to rebut the presumption against retroactivity. Id, at 285-86. "The presumption against statutory retroactivity is founded upon sound considerations of general policy and practice, and accords with long held and widely shared expectations about the usual operation of legislation." Id.
+
+Thus, Count Six should be dismissed.
+
+## Motion For More Definite Statement and To Strike, Rule 12(e) and (0, F.R.C.P.
+
+As noted above, Plaintiff alleges that she was 17 year old high school student as of January, 2004, and that the alleged conduct involving EPSTEIN occurred "between approximately January 2004 and May 2005. Thus, Plaintiff had to be 18 (no longer a minor) by January of 2005. Under the principles of statutory construction, the language of §2255(a) is clear — "Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section ...of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than \$50,000 in value."
+
+As Plaintiff's date of birth is significant to her §2255 claim, she should be required to more definitely state her date of birth so that Defendant and this Court are
+
+able to determine precisely when she reached the age of majority. (The age of majority under both federal and state law is 18 years old. See 18 U.S.C. §2256(1), defining a "minor" as "any person under the age of eighteen years;" and §1.01, Definitions, Fla. Stat., defining "minor" to include "any person who has not attained the age of 18 years.")
+
+To the extent that Plaintiff is relying on any alleged conduct that occurred after her 18 birthday as an element of her §2255 claim, such allegations should be stricken as immaterial and she should be required to more definitely state the dates of the alleged conduct. See Rule 12(f). Defendant also seeks to strike ¶¶l0, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, of Plaintiff's Complaint as immaterial and impertinent. None of the allegations in those paragraphs specifically pertain to the Plaintiff. Not until ¶17 does Plaintiff assert allegations pertaining to her and the conduct of Defendant directly involving her. What EPSTEIN may or may not have allegedly done with respect to other alleged girls does not effect Plaintiff's claim brought pursuant to §2255. The allegations in ¶¶10-16 are not related to the elements of Plaintiff's §2255 claim and, thus, are required to be stricken.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+Pursuant to the above, Count Six is required to be dismissed. In addition, Plaintiff should be required to more definitely state her date of birth, and any conduct occurring after her 18th birthday should be stricken, and ¶¶10 — 16 of the Complaint should also be stricken.
+
+WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Cou • ismiss Count Six against him, and further grant his Motion for More Definite Stat trike.
+
+> Robe itt r , Esq. Attorney for Defendant
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the for with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify being served this day on all counsel of recd identified the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 5 day of oing was electronically filed foregoing document is lowing Service List in , 2010.
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 rjosefsberg@podhurst.com kezell@podhurst.com Counsel for Plaintiff
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 iarteso@bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Respectfully d,
+
+By: ROBER ON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 22 •2 rcrit@bc1claw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 moikePbcIclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffiey Epstein)
+
+1
+
+**18 USCA §2255 (1999-July 26, 2006):**
+
+**PART I--CRIMES**
+
+**CHAPTER 110--SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN**
+
+§ 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries
+
+(a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than \$50,000 in value.
+
+(b) Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in the case of a person under a legal disability, not later than three years after the disability.
+
+**CREDIT(S)**
+
+(Added Pub.L. 99-500, Title I, § 101(b) [Title VII, § 703(a)], Oct. 18, 1986, 100 Stat. 1783-75, and amended Pub.L. 99-591, Title I, § 101(b) [Title VII, § 703(a)], Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 3341-75; Pub.L. 105-314, Title VI, § 605, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2984.)
+
+**18 U.S.C. §2255, as amended 2006, Effective July 27, 2006:**
+
+**PART I--CRIMES**
+
+**CHAPTER 110--SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN**
+
+**§ 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries**
+
+(a) **In general.**--Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than \$150,000 in value.
+
+(b) Statute of limitations.--Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in the case of a person under a legal disability, not later than three years after the disability.
+
+# CREDIT(S)
+
+(Added Pub.L. 99-500, Title I, & 101(b) [Title VII, § 703(a)), Oct. 18, 1986, 100 Stat. 1783-75, and amended Pub.L. 99-591, Title I, & 101(b) [Title VII, § 703(a)], Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 3341-75; Pub.L. 105-314, Title VI, & 605, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2984; Pub.L. 109-248, Title VII, § 707(b), (c), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 650.)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748966/EFTA02748966.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748966/EFTA02748966.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6f31872955f7553c04b08a29a6fa380d1c5adf6a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748966/EFTA02748966.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,962 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748966.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 15,
+ "chars": 29469,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 13.13,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 190.94400000000002,
+ 69.66
+ ],
+ [
+ 424.054931640625,
+ 69.66
+ ],
+ [
+ 424.054931640625,
+ 103.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 190.94400000000002,
+ 103.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO D1SMISS,COLNT VI & \nFOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT & TO STRIKE \nDIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 103'S \nCOMPLAINT Mated 2/23/20101",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 133.416,
+ 308.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 481.65789794921875,
+ 308.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 481.65789794921875,
+ 366.35302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 133.416,
+ 366.35302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Supporting Memorandum of Law",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 224.60399999999998,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.2007751464844,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.2007751464844,
+ 84.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 224.60399999999998,
+ 84.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Principles of Statutory Interpretation",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 216.036,
+ 95.58
+ ],
+ [
+ 397.3144226074219,
+ 95.58
+ ],
+ [
+ 397.3144226074219,
+ 110.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 216.036,
+ 110.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Motion to Dismiss",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 273.564,
+ 335.34000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 372.2920227050781,
+ 335.34000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 372.2920227050781,
+ 350.4505920410156
+ ],
+ [
+ 273.564,
+ 350.4505920410156
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Motion For More Definite Statement and To Strike, Rule 12(e) and (0, F.R.C.P.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 100.36800000000001,
+ 346.68
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.0303955078125,
+ 346.68
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.0303955078125,
+ 362.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 100.36800000000001,
+ 362.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Conclusion",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 277.848,
+ 456.8399999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 335.7364196777344,
+ 456.8399999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 335.7364196777344,
+ 471.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 277.848,
+ 471.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 268.05600000000004,
+ 702.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 381.79791259765625,
+ 702.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 381.79791259765625,
+ 717.7330169677734
+ ],
+ [
+ 268.05600000000004,
+ 717.7330169677734
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "18 USCA \u00a72255 (1999-July 26, 2006):",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 124.23600000000002,
+ 101.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 318.24,
+ 101.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 318.24,
+ 115.83
+ ],
+ [
+ 124.23600000000002,
+ 115.83
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PART I--CRIMES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 116.892,
+ 121.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 210.52799999999996,
+ 121.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 210.52799999999996,
+ 134.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 116.892,
+ 134.46
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CHAPTER 110--SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 116.892,
+ 135.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 525.708,
+ 135.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 525.708,
+ 162.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 116.892,
+ 162.0
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CREDIT(S)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 124.23600000000002,
+ 383.93999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 185.43599999999998,
+ 383.93999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 185.43599999999998,
+ 396.90000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 124.23600000000002,
+ 396.90000000000003
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "18 U.S.C. \u00a72255, as amended 2006, Effective July 27, 2006:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 124.23600000000002,
+ 480.3299999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 427.788,
+ 480.3299999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 427.788,
+ 494.09999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 124.23600000000002,
+ 494.09999999999997
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PART I--CRIMES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 124.23600000000002,
+ 493.29
+ ],
+ [
+ 217.87199999999999,
+ 493.29
+ ],
+ [
+ 217.87199999999999,
+ 506.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 124.23600000000002,
+ 506.25
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CHAPTER 110--SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 88.74,
+ 507.06000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 525.708,
+ 507.06000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 525.708,
+ 540.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 88.74,
+ 540.27
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "\u00a7 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 116.892,
+ 549.1800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 332.92800000000005,
+ 549.1800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 332.92800000000005,
+ 562.9499999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 116.892,
+ 562.9499999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CREDIT(S)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 115.05599999999998,
+ 168.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 182.36341857910156,
+ 168.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 182.36341857910156,
+ 184.93353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 115.05599999999998,
+ 184.93353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 73
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 83
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 88
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 78
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 72
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 76
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 58
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 91
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748966"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748981/EFTA02748981.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748981/EFTA02748981.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f136862f2a12ad86346c3a99516edb5e53f4ef6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748981/EFTA02748981.md
@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-C1V-80119-MARRA/J.=
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## NOTICE TO STRIKE
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Notice to Strike:
+
+- I. On April 6, 2010, Defendant filed his Motion for Leave (DE 516).
+- 2. Pursuant to the clerk's instruction, Defendant hereby files his Notice to Strike and will re-file the Motion.
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 6th day of April. 2010
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike
+ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
+Florida Bar No. 224162
+rcrit@bclclaw.com
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+Florida Bar #617296
+mpike@bclclaw.com
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER &
+COLEMAN
+303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561/842-2820 Phone
+561/515-3148 Fax
+(*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein*)
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+**Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein**
+**Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/[REDACTED]**
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+Suite 2218
+Miami, FL 33160
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+ssm@sexabuseattorney.com
+ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs*
+*In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993,
+08-80994*
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+561-659-8300
+
+Brad [REDACTED] Esq.
+[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED] Fistos
+& Lehrman, PL
+Suite #2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+brad@pathtjustice.com
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.
+08-80893*
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+*Pro Hac Vice*
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+801-585-5202
+801-585-6833 Fax
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+
+jagescabellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Isidro M. ME Esq.
+
+EllLaw Firm, P.A.
+
+atura Street, Suite 900
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561-832-7732
+
+561-832-7137 F
+
+isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Plaintif in Related Case No.
+
+08-80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748981/EFTA02748981.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748981/EFTA02748981.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f2cdade8525063c8eb507e137e4263a0ff061574
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748981/EFTA02748981.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748981.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 2775,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 5.86,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 414.36566162109375,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 414.36566162109375,
+ 101.9730224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 101.9730224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "NOTICE TO STRIKE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 247.86,
+ 360.45000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 370.1520690917969,
+ 360.45000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 370.1520690917969,
+ 377.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 247.86,
+ 377.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 635.04
+ ],
+ [
+ 367.21051025390625,
+ 635.04
+ ],
+ [
+ 367.21051025390625,
+ 652.1030120849609
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 652.1030120849609
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/[REDACTED]",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 191.55599999999998,
+ 348.29999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 424.72799999999995,
+ 348.29999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 424.72799999999995,
+ 389.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 191.55599999999998,
+ 389.61
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 60
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748981"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748984/EFTA02748984.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748984/EFTA02748984.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c8aee479d49ae47bed0a75277f08ee44da73819
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748984/EFTA02748984.md
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/la
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF SENSITIVE FIFTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENTS AND SUBMIT UN-REDACTED ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), moves for leave to file redacted versions of sensitive Fifth Amendment arguments and submit original, un-redacted arguments to the Court for in-camera inspection, and in support states:
+
+- 1. Epstein intends to file a Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Orders Dated February 4, 2010 (DE #462), March 4, 2010 (DE #480) and April 1, 2010 (DE #513).
+- 2. In the Request for aRule 4 Review and Appeal, Epstein intends to make arguments regarding sensitive Fifth Amendment issues, which have been provided, in pertinent part, to the magistrate by way of in camera submissions and filed electronically in redacted form.
+- 3. Epstein moves for leave to file such sensitive Fifth Amendment arguments in redacted form and provide the original, un-redacted versions for the Court to consider in-camera.
+
+4. As set forth in DE #s 282 and 283, Epstein cannot provide information related to his financial history and condition without waiving his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
+
+5. The Court has previously permitted Epstein to file redacted versions of such sensitive Fifth Amendment arguments and provide un-redacted versions for in-camera inspection. See DE #s 282, 283. Indeed, the Court considered the in-camera submissions in DE #s 282 and 283 in vacating portions of its August 4, 2009 Order (DE #242) and sustaining Epstein's Fifth Amendment objections to six requests for production (objections that were initially overruled in DE #242). See DE #293; see also U.S. v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 1505-06 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (affirming lower court's decision to file redacted plea agreements to serve compelling government interests); In re Duque, 134 B.R. 679, 687 (S.D. Fla. 1991) (finding that court's procedure requiring attorneys to provide privileged documents to court for in-camera inspection while providing redacted versions to the bankruptcy trustee was proper).
+
+6. It is critical that the Court allow Epstein to effectively assert his Constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments without the risk of waiving such rights.
+
+7. The importance of permitting Epstein to file redacted arguments and provide unredacted versions for in-camera inspection is underscored by the Court's September 9, 2009 Order (DE #293), in which it reversed portions of its prior Order (DE #242) that initially overruled Epstein's Fifth Amendment objections. When Epstein filed his Rule 4 Appeal (DE #282) and provided the sensitive Fifth Amendment arguments in-camera, the Court vacated portions of its prior Order (DE #242) and sustained Epstein's Fifth Amendment objections to six production requests.
+
+WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, requests the Court grant him leave to file redacted versions of sensitive Fifth Amendment arguments and provide the un-redacted versions to the Court for in-camera inspection and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: s/Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit@bciclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+IHEREBY CERTIFY that atrue copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 6th day of April, 2010.
+
+> By: s/Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit@bcIclaw.com MICHAEL J. ME, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mpike®bc1claw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+## Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffalis. Case No. 08-CV-80119-MA
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 Ssm@sexabuseattornev.com ahorowitz@sexabuseattornev.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 jagesa®bellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein
+
+er , Esq. , Jaffe, Weissing, , Fistos & Lehrman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 brad@vathtoiustice.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax cassello@law.utah.edu Co-counsdruf aintiff Jane Doe laidra M. M, Esq. Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datum Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F isidrozarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 Liosefsberg@toodhurst.com kezell(apodhurst.com Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748984/EFTA02748984.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748984/EFTA02748984.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..95663d43ac7e53eaeec150c690c113254b9065e5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748984/EFTA02748984.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,273 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748984.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 5799,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.96,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 196.452,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 406.36800000000005,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 406.36800000000005,
+ 102.06
+ ],
+ [
+ 196.452,
+ 102.06
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF \nSENSITIVE FIFTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENTS AND \nSUBMIT UN-REDACTED ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 139.536,
+ 360.45000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 475.524,
+ 360.45000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 475.524,
+ 408.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 139.536,
+ 408.24
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 251.53199999999998,
+ 320.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 363.72552490234375,
+ 320.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 363.72552490234375,
+ 334.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 251.53199999999998,
+ 334.53
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service \nJane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffalis. \nCase No. 08-CV-80119-MA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 184.82399999999998,
+ 74.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 414.324,
+ 74.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 414.324,
+ 115.01999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 184.82399999999998,
+ 115.01999999999998
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 240
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 360
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 226
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 292
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748984"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748988/EFTA02748988.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748988/EFTA02748988.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ff15f71f5781f568f98b1275540ebd993fc293d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748988/EFTA02748988.md
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSO
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+FILED by CIA D C APR - 6 2010 STEVEN M. LARIMORE CLERK U.S. OIST. CT. S.O. OF FLA. - W.P13.
+
+## ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION IN DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM
+
+This matter came before the Court on Defendant's, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Motion to Exceed Page Limitation in his Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462) with Incorporated ci.e0sDI Objections and Memorandumi.l Having considered Defendant's motion to exceed page limitation, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
+
+Defendant's motion is GRANTED. Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Request for Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462) with
+
+Incorporated Objections and Memorandum may exceed 10 pages.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this 6 day of AM/ 6 , 2010.
+
+0 1 6-1,1, 1 0-t-.-- KermettrAt+4arra tame& R .=0I#V1Sitas..14/ 3 United States Disrie'Judge
+
+Courtesy Copies: Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748988/EFTA02748988.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748988/EFTA02748988.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b76519a552eb2c46a46129be9d173a6a26483615
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748988/EFTA02748988.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748988.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1713,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.77,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 207.87,
+ 90.72
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.4728088378906,
+ 90.72
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.4728088378906,
+ 120.2872314453125
+ ],
+ [
+ 207.87,
+ 120.2872314453125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED \nPAGE LIMITATION IN DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE \nIN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION \nAND/OR REQUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF \nTHE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH \nINCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 99.63,
+ 366.93
+ ],
+ [
+ 510.04119873046875,
+ 366.93
+ ],
+ [
+ 510.04119873046875,
+ 449.2514953613281
+ ],
+ [
+ 99.63,
+ 449.2514953613281
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 259
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 100
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748988"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748990/EFTA02748990.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748990/EFTA02748990.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ad14e057f1373d2b23b2503e24f29d0af26e53b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748990/EFTA02748990.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-801 I9-MARRA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER
+
+THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versions of Sensitive Fifth Amendment Arguments and Submit Un-Redacted Arguments to the Court (DE 518). Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to file an expedited response to Defendant's motion on or before April 12, 2010.
+
+The deadline for Defendant to file his appeal is extended until the Court resolves the pending Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versions. Once the Court rules on Defendant's motion, it will enter an order stating a revised deadline for Defendant to file his appeal.
+
+DONE AND ORDERED in at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 7h day of April, 2010.
+
+n KENNETH A. MARRA Copies to: United States District Judge
+
+all counsel of record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748990/EFTA02748990.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748990/EFTA02748990.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8142056ffdda214294bbdfe36495c5152db68c09
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748990/EFTA02748990.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748990.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 1063,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.77,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.5581359863281,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.5581359863281,
+ 100.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 100.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 369.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.3381042480469,
+ 369.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.3381042480469,
+ 383.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 383.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 58
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748990"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748991/EFTA02748991.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748991/EFTA02748991.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef20dcc7b98acbefbb575f6efae6b625b555e6a5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748991/EFTA02748991.md
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+Westlaw
+
+Page 1
+
+Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 3200702 (D.Puerto Rico) (Cite as: 2008 WL 3200702 (D.Puerto Rico))
+
+14 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
+
+United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. STERLING MERCHANDISING, INC., Plaintiff v. NESTLE. S.A., et al, Defendants. Civil No. 06-1015(SEC).
+
+Aug. 5,2008.
+
+Ada Sofi v ., David C. Indiano-VICIC, Jef-M. English, Seth Erbe, Indiano & PSC, Javier A. Morales-Ramos, Javier A. Morales Ramos Law Office, Saga, PR, PHV AdamC. Briggs, PHV David). Godfrey & S.C., PHV Jennifer Cotner, PHV KevinJ. WI, Lafollete Godfrey & Kahn, Madison, WI, or Plaintiff.
+
+Luis A. III.Fraticelli, Jose L. Ramirez-Coll, nm i Roberto A. Camara-Fuertes. FidcS & Rodriguez, Lavinia Aparicio-= 1onwealth ailment of Justice, San Juan, PR, PHV Eri kT. PHV CarmineR. Zarlenga, Howrey LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
+
+## ORDER
+
+SALVADOR E. CASELLAS, Senior Judge.
+
+\*1 Pending before the Court is Sterling's request to compel Co-Defendant Nestle, P.R. (hereinafter NPR) to produce anon-redacted version of a document identified as "Nestle PR Highly Confidential 640" (hereinafter referred to as NPRD It 640), as discussed during the Case Management and Settlement Conference held on June 9th, 2008 (Docket \* 169). In such conference, the Court held in abeyance Sterling's request and ordered NPR to file an ex-pane motion with the un-redacted version of the document for an in camera review by the Court along with a legal memorandum on why the information should be held privileged under the attorney-client privilege. Id. NPR complied and filed motions at Docket 170 & 171. Also in compliance with the Court's order, Sterling opposed such motions at Docket Jt 172. Having reviewed the document in dispute, the parties' filings, and the applicable law, the Court DENIES Sterling's request for the redacted information on NPRD # 640 to be revealed.
+
+## Factual and Procedural Background
+
+NPR filed a legal memorandum arguing that the attorney-client privilege should attach to the information redacted in NPRD II 640 because it contained legal advice being informed by one NPR employee to another so as to procure the enforcement of the legal advice provided by NPR's Counsel. Docket \$ 171, p. 2. Sterling opposed NPR's motion. Docket # 172. There, it agreed with NPR in that "communications by corporate officials that convey an attorney's legal advice to other corporate officials remain subject to the attorney-client privilege." Id. at 2. However, it argues that underlying facts communicated to the attorney are not protected. Id. at 3. It also contends that the privilege does not protect non legal communications based on business advice given by a lawyer. Id. Let's see.
+
+## Applicable Law and Analysis
+
+Fed.R.Evid. 501 provides that any privilege "shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States." Therefore, any claim for privilege will be analyzed through the lens of federal common law. NPR alleges that the communication in dispute is privileged under the attorney-client privilege; "the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law." Upjohn Company v. United Stares, 449 U.S. 383, 389, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981)(hereinafter
+
+C 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
+
+of
+
+Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 3200702 (D.Puerto Rico)
+**(Cite as: 2008 WL 3200702 (D.Puerto Rico))**
+
+referred to as *UpJohn* ). The purpose of such privilege is "to encourage full and ██████ communications between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and the administration of justice." *Id.* This is so because "sound legal advice or advocacy serves public ends and that such advice or advocacy depends upon the lawyer's being fully informed by the client." *Id.* However, the Supreme Court recognized that "complications in the application of the privilege arise when the client is a corporation, which in theory is an artificial creature of the law...." *Id.* at 389-390.
+
+\*2 In *UpJohn* the Supreme Court rejected the control group test whereby only communications made by a corporation to Counsel via employees within the high hierarchy of the company were protected. The *UpJohn* Court stated that such "narrow scope ... not only makes it difficult for corporate attorneys to formulate sound advice when their client is faced with a specific legal problem, but also threatens to limit the valuable efforts of corporate counsel to ensure their client's compliance with the law." *UpJohn*, 449 U.S. at 392. Therefore, when a corporate client requires legal advice, and employees communicate to counsel information needed to procure such advice, such communications and advice, regardless of the employees' position within the company, are protected from disclosure unless waiver applies. *Id.* at 394.
+
+In order for a communication to be considered privileged, the party moving to have the communication be deemed privileged must show: (1) that he was a client of the attorney; (2) that the attorney in connection with the document acted as a lawyer; (3) that the document relates to facts communicated for the purpose of securing a legal opinion, legal services or assistance in a legal proceeding; and (4) the privilege has not been waived. *U.S.A. v. Bay State Ambulance and Hospital Rental Service, Inc.*, 874 F.2d 20, 27-28 (1st Cir.1989)(hereinafter *Bay State* ).
+
+There is no issue of waiver here. Sterling also
+
+agrees with the proposition that a communication made by an NPR employee to another in relation with NPR's Counsel's legal advice, would, in general, be protected from disclosure. It contends, however, that only communications are protected, not underlying facts, and that non legal advice is also outside the bounds of the attorney-client privilege. Although Sterling is correct in these two propositions, neither argument assists it in its quest. After reviewing the non redacted version of NPRD # 640, the Court is without doubt that the redacted information related to legal advice formerly requested by NPR to Counsel, which was then communicated by NPR's Bayamón General Manager to NPR San Juan General Manager so that the company could put Counsel's legal advice into action. As such, the information is protected. *See, In re Grand Jury 90-1*, 758 F.Supp. 1411, 1413 (D.Colo.1991) (information passed by the President of the client corporation to its Board of Directors regarding legal advice procured by the corporation's President, was privileged as the information was only "making advice available to another part of this inanimate entity."); *see also, Diversified Indus., Inc. v. Meredith*, 572 F.2d 596, 611 (8th Cir.1977).
+
+Although Sterling is correct in that communications, not facts, are protected under the privilege, it is precisely the communication of the legal advice made by NPR's counsel from one NPR employee to another which we hold privileged today. Therefore, Sterling's argument is inapplicable here. Furthermore, because we hold that the advice given was legal in nature, the other exception mentioned by Sterling, to wit, that non legal advice is without the realms of the privilege, is also without consequence.
+
+\*3 Finally, NPR argued in its memorandum that Sterling had also produced many redacted documents, and that, because NPR was subjected to an *in camera* inspection of the NPRD # 640, Sterling's redacted documents should be treated the same way. Although such remedy is available, Local Rule 26 requires that prior to submitting a discov-
+
+Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 3200702 (D.Puerto Rico) (Cite as: 2008 WL 3200702 (D.Puerto Rico))
+
+ery dispute for the Courts resolution, the parties meet in good faith and attempt to resolve the matter, and certify having done so to the Court As such, NPR's request for an order to produce the documents for in camera inspection is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court hereby OR-DERS the parties to confer first in an attempt to amicably resolve this dispute. Should NPR require the Courts assistance in the future with regards to this matter, it may renew its motion.
+
+SO ORDERED.
+
+D.Puerto Rico,2008. Sterling Merchandising, Inc. v. Nestle, S.A. Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 3200702 (D.Puerto Rico)
+
+END OF DOCUMENT
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748991/EFTA02748991.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748991/EFTA02748991.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6af29719cfdc782607eb3b1c2237dc69b2b0d2d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748991/EFTA02748991.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748991.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 8396,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 15.52,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 165.24,
+ 467.37
+ ],
+ [
+ 205.14491271972656,
+ 467.37
+ ],
+ [
+ 205.14491271972656,
+ 478.4198303222656
+ ],
+ [
+ 165.24,
+ 478.4198303222656
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Factual and Procedural Background",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 323.74800000000005,
+ 264.87
+ ],
+ [
+ 486.9595642089844,
+ 264.87
+ ],
+ [
+ 486.9595642089844,
+ 277.34356689453125
+ ],
+ [
+ 323.74800000000005,
+ 277.34356689453125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Applicable Law and Analysis",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 326.196,
+ 486.80999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 458.1509704589844,
+ 486.80999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 458.1509704589844,
+ 499.6395263671875
+ ],
+ [
+ 326.196,
+ 499.6395263671875
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 641
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 86
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 167
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748991"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748994/EFTA02748994.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748994/EFTA02748994.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5bf289ccdf36c5712999663af23575e7312c305a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748994/EFTA02748994.md
@@ -0,0 +1,297 @@
+Wd4jayst
+
+Page 1
+
+91 F.3d 1026, 51 Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 343. Med & Med GD (CCH) P 44,528
+
+(Cite as: 91 F.3d 1026)
+
+P-
+
+United States Court of Appeals.
+
+Seventh Circuit.
+
+The METHODIST HOSPITALS, INC., et al.,
+
+Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees,
+
+v.
+
+Cheryl = Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, and James M. Verdier, Assistant Secretary and Director of the Indiana Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning, Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants.
+
+Nos. 95-3078, 95.3200 and 95-3983.
+
+Argued May 16, 1996.
+
+Decided Aug. 2, 1996.
+
+Physicians and hospitals brought action against state officials seeking to enjoin implementation of states new rules affecting Medicaid reimbursement for inpatient, outpatient and physician services. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Rudy Lozano, J., 860 F.Supp. 1309, dismissed some claims for failure to state claim and granted summary judgment in favor of state officials on remaining claims. Physicians and hospitals appealed. The Court of Appeals, Easterbrook, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) physicians and hospitals had private right of action to challenge new Medicaid rules as violative of equal access provision of Medicaid statute; (2) state was not required under equal access provision to conduct comprehensive study before implementing new rules; (3) state officials were not entitled to award of attorney fees; and (4) information regarding physicians' income contained in state officials' brief was not subject to disclosure.
+
+Affirmed.
+
+West Head notes
+
+11) Health 1980 €=.510
+
+198H Health
+
+1980111 Government Assistance
+
+198H111(B) Medical Assistance in General; Medicaid
+
+198Hk506 Judicial Review; Actions
+
+198Hk5 10 k. Standing. Most Cited
+
+Cases
+
+(Formerly 356Ak241.115)
+
+Hospitals which engaged in treatment of Medicaid recipients had standing to challenge validity of new state rules which changed Medicaid reimbursement formula for outpatient services, where hospitals' chief financial officer predicted in affidavit that new outpatient rules would cost hospitals \$1 million per year compared with former reimbursement method.
+
+[2] Federal Courts 170B C) 272
+
+170B Federal Courts
+
+170B1V Citizenship, Residence or Character of Parties, Jurisdiction Dependent on
+
+170BIV(A) In General
+
+170Bk268 What Are Suits Against States
+
+1708k272 k. Injunctive or Mandatory
+
+Relief; Declaratory Judgments. Most Cited Cases Eleventh Amendment did not bar hospitals' suit to enjoin state officials from implementing state's new rule affecting Medicaid reimbursement for outpatient services, even if Eleventh Amendment barred award of monetary damages. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. II.
+
+(3] Civil Rights 780C=, 1330(6)
+
+78 Civil Rights
+
+78111 Federal Remedies in General
+
+78k1328 Persons Protected and Entitled to Sue
+
+78k1330 Private Right of Action
+
+78k1330(6) k. Other Particular Cases and Contexts. Most Cited Cases
+
+(Formerly 78k200)
+
+Health 1980 et =o507
+
+'1
+
+(Cite as: 91 F.3d 1026)
+
+### 19814 Health
+
+19814111 Government Assistance
+
+19814111(B) Medical Assistance in General;
+
+Medicaid
+
+198Hk506 Judicial Review; Actions
+
+198Hk507 k. In General. Most Cited
+
+#### Cases
+
+(Formerly 356Ak241.115)
+
+Physicians and hospitals engaged in treatment of Medicaid recipients had private right of action, derived under § 1983, to challenge state's new Medicaid reimbursement rules as violative of equal access provision of Medicaid statute, despite apparent ambiguity of term "geographic area" as that term was used in equal access provision. Social Security Act, § 1902(a)(30), as amended. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1396a(aX30); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
+
+[4) Civil Rights 78 ()=71330(6)
+
+# 78 Civil Rights
+
+78111 Federal Remedies in General
+
+78k1328 Persons Protected and Entitled to Sue
+
+78k 1330 Private Right of Action
+
+78k1330(6) k. Other Particular Cases
+
+and Contexts. Most Cited Cases
+
+(Formerly 78k200)
+
+## Health 198H €:=.507
+
+### 198H Health
+
+19814111 Government Assistance
+
+19814111(B) Medical Assistance in General;
+
+Medicaid
+
+198Hk506 Judicial Review; Actions
+
+198Hk507 k. In General. Most Cited
+
+### Cases
+
+(Formerly 356Ak241.115)
+
+Providers of medical care have private right of action, derived through § 1983, to enforce equal access provision of Medicaid statute. Social Security Act, § 1902(a)(30), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1396a(a)(30); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
+
+[5) Health 198H €=o487(4)
+
+#### 198H Health
+
+198H111 Government Assistance
+
+198HIII(B) Medical Assistance in General;
+
+Medicaid
+
+198Hk484 Providers
+
+198111087 Reimbursement
+
+198I-Ik487(4) k. Costs. Most Cited
+
+#### Cases
+
+(Formerly 356Ak2A1.66)
+
+State complied with equal access provision of Medicaid statute in adopting and implementing new Medicaid reimbursement rules, though state did not engage in comprehensive study prior to changing its plan of reimbursement, where state first changed Medicaid reimbursement formulas, then launched studies to find out whether new prices elicited enough medical care and thereafter modified its reimbursement system accordingly. Social Security Act, § 1902(a)(30), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1396a(a)(30).
+
+[61 Health 198H ,C=467
+
+## 19814 Health
+
+198HIII Government Assistance
+
+19814111(13) Medical Assistance in General;
+
+Medicaid
+
+198Hk466 Eligibility for Benefits
+
+198Hk467 k. In General. Most Cited
+
+#### Cases
+
+(Formerly 356Ak241.55)
+
+Equal access provision of Medicaid statute does not require state to conduct studies in advance of every modification of its Medicaid reimbursement plan; rather, it requires each state to produce result, not to employ any particular methodology for getting there. Social Security Act, § 1902(a)(30), as amended. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1396a(a)(30).
+
+[7) Civil Rights 78 €:=1484
+
+## 78 Civil Rights
+
+78111 Federal Remedies in General
+
+78k1477 Attorney Fees
+
+78k1484 k. Awards to Defendants; Frivolous, Vexatious, or Meritless Claims. Most Cited
+
+(Cite as: 91 F.3d 1026)
+
+### Cases
+
+(Formerly 78k298)
+
+State officials who prevailed on health care providers' various claims under § 1983 challenging validity of state's new Medicaid reimbursement rules were not entitled to award of attorney fees, despite state officiate contentions that health care providers filed suit only to promote their commercial interests and that money used to pay lawyers to defend state in such lawsuit was unavailable to provide medical benefits to indigents. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1988.
+
+181 Records 326 (C=32
+
+## 326 Records
+
+32611 Public Access
+
+32611(A) In General
+
+326k32 k. Court Records. Most Cited In physicians' and hospitals' action against state officials challenging validity of state's new Medicaid reimbursement rules, information regarding physicians' incomes, which was contained in state officials' brief filed in opposition to physicians and hospitals' motion for temporary restraining order, was confidential and, therefore, not to be disclosed to public; however, remainder of state officials' brief was subject to disclosure.
+
+[9] Records 326 te=.32
+
+# 326 Records
+
+3261I Public Access
+
+3261I(A) In General
+
+326k32 k. Court Records. Most Cited Judicial proceedings are presumptively open, but particular information may be withheld.
+
+\*1027 David B. LoveSond .1. Kelly, Eva-Maria Wohn, Seyfarth, Fairweather & Geraldson, Chicago. IL, Bonnie C. Coleman (arms),, Jill M. Madajczyk, Earle F. Bites, Hodges & Merrillville, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellant Met ist Hospitals, Inc.
+
+David B. Love, Ra mond J. Kelly, Eva-Maria Wohn, Seyfarth, Fairweather & Geraldson, Chicago, IL, Bonnie . Coleman, (argued), Jill M. Madajczyk, Earle F. Rites, Hodges & IME Merrillville, IN, for Plaintiffs-Appellants =id E. M.D., James M.D., Douge Barthelemy, Randall C. M.D.
+
+David B. Love. Raymond J. Kelly, Eva-Maria Wohn, Seyfarth. Fairweather & Geraldson, Chicago, IL, Bonnie . Coleman, Jill M. Madajczyk, Earle F. Rites (argued), Hodges & Merrillville, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellant Dell McCullough, M.D.
+
+Mark H. (argued), Covington & Burling, Washington, Timothy G. S. Bokkelen, Goodman, Ball & Vanlicellighland, IN, Matthew R. Gutwein, Richard E. Shevitz, Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Cheryl and James M. Verdier.
+
+Before EASTERBROOK, RIPPLE, and DIANE P. Circuit Judges.
+
+EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.
+
+On January 1, 1994, Indiana changed the formulas it uses to pay providers of services under the Medicaid program. For the most part, these rules were short-lived; with the exception of the rules governing outpatient services, all were replaced within a year. But the litigation in their wake is long-lived. Joined by five physicians, the Methodist Hospitals of Gary, Indiana, filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that the new rules were invalid. See Maine v. rhiboutot, 448 U.S. I, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980). The district court dismissed some claims under Rule I2(b)(6). holding that the statute does not create a private right of action in plaintiffs' favor, and granted summary judgment to defendants on the rest. Its principal opinion is reported at 860 F.Supp. 1309 (1994); there are several unpublished orders. Victory emboldened Indiana to seek attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988,
+
+(Cite as: 91 F.3d 1026)
+
+which the district court declined to award. Collateral disputes also broke out. When plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order, defendants filed a brief containing confidential information. The district court sealed this brief; defendants want us to unseal it. The parties also disagree about whether the case is moot, which may depend on the meaning of the •1028 eleventh amendment. To prevent matters from getting out of hand, we simplify throughout this opinion.
+
+First comes the question whether the parties have a live controversy. Two of the three sets of rules were defunct before the district court decided the case, which neither the judge nor plaintiffs' appellate brief mentions. We learned this for the first time when encountering the state's argument that we should dismiss the proceedings as moot. For its pan, the state relegated the outpatient rules to a footnote, as did plaintiffs' reply brief-which contends, despite the eleventh amendment, that the possibility of a monetary recovery forestalls mootness. Neither side tells us anything of value about the outpatient rules-even what they do, let alone whether there is an ongoing controversy about their validity.
+
+Ilj[21 According to the district court, until 1994 Indiana reimbursed providers for outpatient services at the provider's customary billing amount, but not to exceed 100% of the provider's actual cost. The new approach pays all providers in the state the same amount for the same service. Following the approach used for Medicare claims, Indiana established nine categories of outpatient services. It pays each provider the sum of 50% of the Medicare rate for that service and 50% of the statewide median amount paid for that service in 1992. Providers with higher-than-average costs (or located where private patients have higher-than-average willingness to pay) thus do worse than before, and providers that have (or can achieve) lower costs of service do well. The Hospitals believe that they are in the former group. An affidavit by the Hospitals' chief financial officer estimates that the outpatient rules will cost the Hospitals \$1 million per year compared with the former method. This is only a prediction made before the amendments took effect; the record does not reveal what has happened, and the prediction may be all wet. But because the case was dismissed on the pleadings, we must assume that the Hospitals could prove their loss, see Lajan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992), which means not only that they have standing to sue but also that the case survives, for a federal court could enjoin operation of the outpatient rules even if the eleventh amendment forbids an award of damages. Because the Hospitals lose on the merits concerning the outpatient rules and do not contend that they have better arguments for the other sets of rules, it turns out to be unnecessary to decide whether the eleventh amendment would have blocked monetary relief on the other two sets.
+
+Plaintiffs' many avenues of assault on the state's rules are for the most part unsupported by argument. For example, plaintiffs insist that the district court "erred in concluding that the State complied with the regulations mandating consultation with the Medical Advisory Committee before the promulgation and implementation of Medicaid Rules" but their brief does not so much as cite a regulation, let alone tell us why the regulation prohibits Indiana's procedures. Defendants tell us that the regulation in question is 42 C.F.R. § 431.12(e), and that several courts of appeals have held that Indiana's approach to consultation is permissible. E.g., Burgess v. Affleck, 683 F.2d 596, 599.600 (1st Cir.1982): Mississippi Hospital Association v. Heckler, 701 F.2d 511, 520, 523 (5th Cir.1983). We see no need to delve into the subject; plaintiffs have not amplified their arguments sufficiently to present an issue for appellate resolution. Similarly, plaintiffs' contention that Indiana's rules violate 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10), which they chastise the district court for ignoring, not only is undeveloped but also disregards the fact that the district court did address it-and dismissed the plaintiffs' contentions on the ground that there is no private right of action to
+
+(Cite as: 91 Fit! 1026)
+
+enforce § 1396a(a)(10). 860 F.Supp. at 1333. Plaintiffs reply brief at last gets 'round to this question. Too late.
+
+13] The only contention plaintiffs have properly presented in this forum is that Indiana's rules do not comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30). This statute says that every Medicaid plan must
+
+provide such methods and procedures relating to the utilization of, and the payment for, care and services available under the '1029 plan ... as may be neconary to safeguard against unnecessary utilization of such care and services and to assure that payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic areal.)
+
+Plaintiffs stress the state's obligation to offer payments sufficient "to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area". The district court dismissed this claim after finding that the words "geographic area" are so ambulatory that the section does not create a private right of action. 860 F.Supp. at Although Arkansas Medical Society v. EMI 6 F.3d 519, 523-28 (8th Cir.1993), holds that providers have a private right of action to enforce § 1396a(a)(30), the district court declined to follow suit, observing that Arkansas Medical Society had not discussed the ambiguity created by "in the geographic area"-an ambiguity the court thought fatal under Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347, 112 S.Ct. 1360, 118 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992).
+
+"Geographic area" could mean many things, depending on what function the boundary serves. If the point of § 1396a(a)(30) is to ensure that every Medicaid recipient can obtain every medical service within walking distance, then the statute places severe constraints on a state plan, but if the law means only that every Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area has to have ample medical services (so that care is available within the reach of public transit systems), then Indiana is home free. Gary, Indiana, is in the Chicago SMSA, which offers medical services galore. How large a geographic area is appropriate may depend on the kind of medical service: emergency care must be swift, and hence close, but longer travel times are tolerable when obtaining outpatient care for chronic conditions. The district judge observed that the Department of Health and Human Services has not issued regulations defining "geographic area" and thought that this is not an appropriate task for acourt to tackle unassisted. This position has some appeal, but it is not clear what rule-writers could do if they tried. For more than a century courts and agencies have wrestled with the concept of the "geographic market" in antitrust law without producing a mechanical definition. Defining geographic markets for medical care has proven no more tractable than geographic markets in general, but courts soldier on. Compare United States v. Rockford Memorial Corp., 898 F.24 1278 (7th Cir.1990), with FTC v. Freeman Hospital, 69 F.3d 260 (8th Cir.1995). Cf. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin v. Marshfield Clinic, 65 F.3d 1406 (7th Cir.1995); Ball Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Mutual Hospital Insurance. Inc., 784 17.2d 1325 (7th Cir.1986).
+
+[4] Of course the antitrust laws create express rights of action, while implementation of the Medicaid program is entrusted principally to the Secretary and the states. But Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Association, 496 U.S. 498, 110 S.Ct. 2510, 110 L.Ed.2d 455 (1990). holds that hospitals have a private right of action to enforce the Boren Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)( I3)(A). a provision that among other things requires state Medicaid plans to "assure that individuals eligible for medical assistance have reasonable access (taking into account geographic location and reasonable travel time) to inpatient hospital services of adequate quality". The Court did not address this source of ambiguity, but Wilder's holding binds us nonetheless. Suter distin-
+
+(Cite as: 91 F.3d 1026)
+
+guished but did not overrule Wilder. We therefore follow Arkansas Medical Society and hold that providers of medical care have a private right of action, derived through § 1983, to enforce § 1396a(a)(30).
+
+15] Which does plaintiffs no good, because their substantive arguments do not show any failing in Indiana's plan. Plaintiffs read § 1396a(a)(30) to require comprehensive studies prior to any change in a states plan of reimbursement-studies that would put an environmental impact study to shame and make it all but impossible for astate to amend its p lan. For what plaintiffs demand \*1030 is nothing less than a complete description of supply and demand schedules for every medical specialty in every part of the state, so that before changing reimbursement rates a state knows exactly what effect the new rate will have on the demand for, and supp ly of, medical care. How else, plaintiffs ask, can a state assure that every Medicaid recipient can find all essential care nearby? Problem: as the Supreme Court recognized in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois. 431 U.S. 720, 97 S.Ct. 2061, 52 L.Ed.2d 707 (1977), it is exceptionally difficult to determine demand and supply schedules for a single product. See also Kansas v. Utilicorp United, Inc., 497 U.S. 199, 110 S.Ct. 2807. 111 L.Ed.2d 169 (1990). Doing this for the entire medical segment of the economy would be more than difficult; it would be impossible. A state could send out a survey, but questions such as "Tell us the minimum amount you would accept without withdrawing from the market" would not elicit honest answers. People often do not even know their reservation prices; they do not willingly reveal them.
+
+m Nothing in the language of § 1396a(a)(30), or any implementing regulation, requires astate to conduct studies in advance of every modification. It requires each state to produce a result, not to emp loy any particular methodology for getting there. Section 1396a(a)(30) is in this respect unlike the Boren Amendment, which requires the state to adopt rules that "the State finds, and makes assurances satisfactory to the Secretary, arc reasonable and adequate" to achieve identified objectives. The Court concluded in Wilder that a state could not make the necessary findings and assurances without conducting astud . See also Illinois Health Care Association v. 983 F.2d 1460 (7th Cir.1993). Under 6a(a)(30), however, states may behave like other buyers of goods and services in the marketplace: they may say what they are willing to pay and see whether this brings forth an adequate supply. If not, the state may (and under § 1396a(a)(30), must) raise the price until the market clears.
+
+This is what Indiana has done. On January 1, 1994, it reduced the price it offered for medical services• although not by much. (Recall that it used statewide averages of going prices as benchmarks.) Then it launched studies to find out whether the new prices elicited enough medical care. Plaintiffs deride these as after-the-fact paperwork, which they were from the perspective of January 1, 1994, but they are before-the-fact inquiries for the changes that followed. On October 6, 1994. Indiana modified the reimbursement system for physicians' services, 18 Ind.Reg. 87 (Oct. 1, 1994), and on November 4 it implemented arevised reimbursement system for inpatient hospital services, 18 Ind.Rev. 243 (Nov. 1, 1994). Indiana must have made satisfactory choices based on what it learned, for plaintiffs do not complain about these rules. The reimbursement system for outpatient hospital services was left as is, and although, as we have said, this staves off mootness, plaintiffs do not assert that they have withdrawn from the outpatient market as a result. Indeed, they have not offered to show that any provider withdrew, anywhere in the state. Plaintiffs offered dire predictions, but Indiana used 1994 to check predictions against reality. This approach seems to us sound. Whether or not abetter way could be devised, it was a lawful way to proceed.
+
+17] This conclusion sets up the state's argument that it is entitled to attorneys' fees under § 1988. Indiana acknowledges that the Supreme Court treats § 1988
+
+(Cite as: 91 F.3d 1026)
+
+as slanted in plaintiffs favor: a prevailing plaintiff recovers legal fees as of course, but a prevailing defendant recovers fees only if the suit was ndless or without foundation." Hughes v. , 449 U.S. 5, 14, 101 S.Ct. 173, 178, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980). See also Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, luau 412, 98 5.O. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978); v. Piggie Park Enterprises. Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968). According to Indiana, Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 114 S.Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994), casts a new light on § 1 Fogerty held that language in the copyright act., terially identical to § 1988 does not permit acourt to use one standard for prevailing plaintiffs and a different standard for prevailing defendants. Defendants ask us to adopt anew rule under which \*1031 plaintiffs who file suit to promote their "commercial interests" must reimburse prevailing defendants. Money that Indiana pays to lawyers to defend litigation such as this is unavailable to provide medical benefits to indigents. But it may not be so easy to distinguish "commercial" from other interests; higher levels of reimbursement mean higher take-home pay for physicians, but also extra care for needy patients-and at all events Fogerty does not support adistinction between commercial and altruistic litigation. We have been told to apply existing precedents while leaving to the Supreme Court the question whether other decisions have undermined their authority. Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 1921, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989), Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533, 535, 103 S.Crii, 1344, 75 L.Ed.2d 260 (1983), and Hutto v. 454 U.S. 370, 102 S.Ct. 703, 70 L.Ed.2d 556 (1982). The district court denied the state's request for attorneys' fees, as Hughes requires. If Indiana thinks that Fogerty calls for a different answer, it must seek relief from the authors of that opinion.
+
+181 The parties' final dispute, about the sealed brief opposing plaintiffs' motion for a TRO, likewise may be resolved without visiting first principles. To
+
+expedite discovery, the parties agreed that sensitive information would be turned over in confidence. A protective order provided that the district judge could order any of this information put in the public record on application of either side. Indiana's brief opposing plaintiffs' motion for a TRO included the five physicians' incomes, which had been revealed under this procedure, so it was sealed pending resolution of the states request that the judge authorize the disclosures. Indiana later assured the court that it would not apply its new reimbursement rules to plaintiffs until the court decided the suit on the merits; the judge therefore did not rule on the request for a TRO. The principle that materials on which a judicial decision rests are presumptively in the public domain, In re Continental Illinois Securities Litigation, 732 F.2d 1302 (7th Cir.1984); cf. Grove Fresh Distributors, Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893 (7th Cir.1994), therefore is not in play.
+
+19) Defendants stress the common law right of access to documents filed in litigation. See Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986); Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-99, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1311-13, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978); In re Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d 1325, 1331-33 (D.C.Cir.1985) (Scalia, J.). Plaintiffs observe that much commercial information is confidential (think of trade secrets) and that access to the courts should not be conditioned on revealing one's secrets to the general public. Both sides are right. Judicial proceedings are presumptively open, but particular information may be withheld. Personal income is among the categories that can be withheld. Disclosure of tax returns is highly restricted, see Hrubec v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 49 F.3d 1269 (7th Cir.1995), and we do not think that the disclosure of the same information becomes compulsory whenever a state decides to put it in a brief. Its inclusion in the state's memorandum is gratuitous.
+
+Let us suppose that the five physician plaintiffs all
+
+(Cite as: 91 F.3d 1026)
+
+enjoy substantial incomes; of what relevance is this? Medicaid is not rate-of-return regulation. Plaintiffs do not allege a "taking" or adopt any other theory that makes their income salient. The substantive question is not, as Indiana professes to believe, whether its reimbursement rules would drive p hysicians out of the medical profession and induce them to take up architecture or accounting. It is whether areduction in what they can make from Medicaid patients in Gary would lead them to change the character or location of their practicesperhaps closing their doors to Medicaid patients in favor of those who have private insurance, perhaps moving to Illinois or another state that offers more generous remuneration. The economic question, in other words, is how the rules affect physicians on the margin, and whether they would choose to avoid that effect by altering their practice. This question, about physicians' reservation wages, is not illuminated by information about their annual gross or net incomes.
+
+\*1032 But it does not follow, as the physicians suppose, that the district court properly ordered the state's memorandum to remain under seal. To say that particular information is confidential is not to say that the entire document containing that information is confidential. Cases under the Freedom of Information Act stress that the confidential material should be redacted and the remainder of the document disclosed, in order to afford access to information in which the public is legitimately interested. The same principle, and for the same reason, applies to information created or turned up in litigation. See In re Krynick' s 983 F.2d 74 (7th Cir.I992) (Easterbrook, J., in ; cf. Pepsico, Inc. v. Redm ir g i .3d 2 t ir.1995) (Easterbrook, J., in .
+
+The district court therefore should not have denied defendants' motion to unseal their memorandum. The court instead should have ordered defendants to redact the confidential information and then should have placed the remainder of the document in the public record. The case is remanded so that this may be accomplished, but the judgment is otherwise affirmed.
+
+C.A.7 (Ind.),1996.
+
+Methodist Hospitals, Inc. v.
+
+91 F.3d 1026, 51 Soc.Secieleiv. 343, Med & Med GD (CCH) P 44,528
+
+END OF DOCUMENT
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748994/EFTA02748994.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748994/EFTA02748994.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d4ed0bb270706d1f2c3f39d616e02fcfc9d65b21
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748994/EFTA02748994.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,627 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02748994.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 8,
+ "chars": 28983,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 4.22,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "19814 Health",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 67.932,
+ 114.20999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 121.78800000000001,
+ 114.20999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 121.78800000000001,
+ 125.27099609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 67.932,
+ 125.27099609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Cases",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 67.932,
+ 180.63
+ ],
+ [
+ 95.47200000000001,
+ 180.63
+ ],
+ [
+ 95.47200000000001,
+ 191.2796630859375
+ ],
+ [
+ 67.932,
+ 191.2796630859375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "78 Civil Rights",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 71.60400000000001,
+ 334.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 136.1317138671875,
+ 334.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 136.1317138671875,
+ 346.89410400390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 71.60400000000001,
+ 346.89410400390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Health 198H \u20ac:=.507",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 73.44,
+ 422.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 171.8123779296875,
+ 422.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 171.8123779296875,
+ 434.8801574707031
+ ],
+ [
+ 73.44,
+ 434.8801574707031
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "198H Health",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 73.44,
+ 446.31000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 128.6546173095703,
+ 446.31000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 128.6546173095703,
+ 457.104248046875
+ ],
+ [
+ 73.44,
+ 457.104248046875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Cases",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 73.44,
+ 512.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 103.03956604003906,
+ 512.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 103.03956604003906,
+ 523.8871154785156
+ ],
+ [
+ 73.44,
+ 523.8871154785156
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "198H Health",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 319.464,
+ 108.53999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 373.93199999999996,
+ 108.53999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 373.93199999999996,
+ 119.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 319.464,
+ 119.07
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Cases",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 319.464,
+ 186.3
+ ],
+ [
+ 347.616,
+ 186.3
+ ],
+ [
+ 347.616,
+ 196.82999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 319.464,
+ 196.82999999999998
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "19814 Health",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 323.136,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 379.44,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 379.44,
+ 373.40999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 323.136,
+ 373.40999999999997
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Cases",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 323.136,
+ 429.29999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 353.0769958496094,
+ 429.29999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 353.0769958496094,
+ 439.83000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 323.136,
+ 439.83000000000004
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "78 Civil Rights",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 326.196,
+ 562.14
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.31365966796875,
+ 562.14
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.31365966796875,
+ 574.29
+ ],
+ [
+ 326.196,
+ 574.29
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Cases",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 66.708,
+ 113.4
+ ],
+ [
+ 98.07615661621094,
+ 113.4
+ ],
+ [
+ 98.07615661621094,
+ 124.25604248046875
+ ],
+ [
+ 66.708,
+ 124.25604248046875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "326 Records",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 69.768,
+ 278.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 127.51779174804688,
+ 278.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 127.51779174804688,
+ 290.3705749511719
+ ],
+ [
+ 69.768,
+ 290.3705749511719
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "326 Records",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 72.828,
+ 455.22
+ ],
+ [
+ 130.0377960205078,
+ 455.22
+ ],
+ [
+ 130.0377960205078,
+ 467.7367858886719
+ ],
+ [
+ 72.828,
+ 467.7367858886719
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 535
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 85
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 42
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 557
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 89
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 621
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 86
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 839
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 94
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 872
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 93
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 886
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 93
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 837
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 94
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 497
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02748994"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749002/EFTA02749002.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749002/EFTA02749002.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f31a53013c74d17d5d70aab16de0e9adabc2045e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749002/EFTA02749002.md
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRal
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+/
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+/
+
+## NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF SENSITIVE i ni AMENDMENT ARGUMENTS AND SUBMIT UN-REDACTED ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT (DE 5181
+
+Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Mr. Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby gives notice of his intent to rely on the following case as supplemental authority in connection with the above referenced Motion for Leave:
+
+- 1. Sterling Merchandising. Inc. v Nestle. S.A., 2008 WL 3200702 (D. Puerto Rico 2008) (acknowledging that a party may produce documents with privileged information redacted and submit the un-redacted documents to the court for an hi-camera inspection).
+
+EXHIBIT "A"
+
+- 2. Methodist Hospitals, Inc. v. Milll, 91 F.3d 1026, 1031-32 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that portions of brief containing confidential personal financial information should be redacted and remainder of brief would be part of public record; "Wudicial proceedings are presumptively open, but particular information may be withheld."). EXHIBIT "B"
+
+By: MI Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar #224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List via electronic mail (EMAIL) on this 9th day of April 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit@belclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 moike@belclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/253-0164 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRALIMM
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ssm@sexabuseattomev.com ahorowitz@sexabuseattomev.com Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, Brad Esq. a e, Weissing, Fistos Le rman, PL 425 N. Andrews Ave. Suite #2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 Brad@pathtojustice.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993,
+08-80994
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+561-659-8300
+
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+
+[jagesq@bellsouth.net](mailto:jagesq@bellsouth.net)
+
+*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein*
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+
+Miami, FL 33130
+
+305 358-2800
+
+Fax: 305 358-2382
+
+[rjosefsberg@podhurst.com](mailto:rjosefsberg@podhurst.com)
+
+[kezell@podhurst.com](mailto:kezell@podhurst.com)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiff*
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+
+*Pro Hac Vice*
+
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+
+801-585-5202
+
+801-585-6833 Fax
+
+[cassellp@law.utah.edu](mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu)
+
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+
+Isidro M. [REDACTED] Esq.
+
+Tara A. Finnigan, Esq.
+
+[REDACTED] Law Firm, P.A.
+
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561-832-7732
+
+561-832-7137 F
+
+[isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net](mailto:isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.*
+
+08-80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749002/EFTA02749002.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749002/EFTA02749002.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b193c3f2322366cfba087164274346cfc54a372
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749002/EFTA02749002.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749002.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 3747,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 6.67,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 73.71000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 417.78961181640625,
+ 73.71000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 417.78961181640625,
+ 103.98248291015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 103.98248291015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY ON DEFENDANT'S \nMOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF SENSITIVE i ni\nAMENDMENT ARGUMENTS AND SUBMIT UN-REDACTED ARGUMENTS \nTO THE COURT (DE 5181",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 91.18799999999999,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.75634765625,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.75634765625,
+ 422.36248779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 91.18799999999999,
+ 422.36248779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 252.75599999999997,
+ 128.79
+ ],
+ [
+ 367.96051025390625,
+ 128.79
+ ],
+ [
+ 367.96051025390625,
+ 145.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 252.75599999999997,
+ 145.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 255.204,
+ 473.84999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 369.09051513671875,
+ 473.84999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 369.09051513671875,
+ 489.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 255.204,
+ 489.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 101
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 72
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749002"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749005/EFTA02749005.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749005/EFTA02749005.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8f0f2543048407be7b17cc835139a7b00a5ea81
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749005/EFTA02749005.md
@@ -0,0 +1,620 @@
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+vs.
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+Defendant's Response In Opposition to Jane Doe 2-8s Motion to Compel Net Worth Discovery, With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law
+
+Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Response In Opposition to Jane Doe 2-8s Motion to Compel Net Worth Discovery (DE 333 and 333-1), With Memorandum Of Law. In support, Epstein states:
+
+**I. Procedural Background**
+
+Plaintiffs served their First Request for Production of Net Worth documents and Interrogatories, and Epstein served his responses and objections thereto. **See Composite Exhibit "A" and "B"**, respectively the Interrogatory Responses/Objections and the Responses/Objections to the Requests for Production, all of which are incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiff filed her Motion to Compel (DE 333).
+
+Previously, this Court entered orders (DE 242 and 293) sustaining several of Epstein's objections under the Fifth Amendment. Many of the instant requests are covered by the Court's orders DE 242 and 293. These cases have been consolidated for
+
+"A"
+
+discovery. Therefore, pursuant to this Court's previous orders regarding discovery and issues concerning the 5th Amendment (DE 242), Epstein is providing certain information in camera because same relates to the 5th Amendment issues previously challenged by Plaintiffs.
+
+# IL Epstein's Objections Should Be Sustained Under The 5i' Amendment Because The Discovery Requests Seek Testimonial And Incriminating Information
+
+# a- Introduction and Discovery Requests
+
+The Magistrate Judge found that several of the requests were ". . . testimonial in nature, in that by production, Epstein would be implicitly communicating `statements of fact' to which the Fifth Amendment privilege may be validly asserted." (DE 242, p. 10). On that basis, and as a limited example, this Court denied Plaintiffs motion relative to requests seeking telephone records of calls made by Epstein to his employees. Likewise, this Court denied Plaintiff's motion relative to interrogatories seeking the names of Epstein's employees or their telephone numbers finding that same "would furnish alink in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein of acrime." (DE 242, p.8-9). Additionally, this Court denied Plaintiff's motion relative to interrogatories that required Epstein to identify persons or witnesses that have knowledge of the events in question. Id. at p. 8. In ruling, the court recognized that ". . . the facts alleged in the Amended Complaints, the elements needed to convict Epstein of a crime, and . . . the Court's knowledge concerning the cases at issue" provide abasis for Epstein to raise the privilege based upon "genuinely threatening questions" which could furnish alink in the chain of evidence needed to convict Epstein of acrime. (DE 242, p.18) United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980).
+
+[Redacted text block]
+
+*The Interrogatories*
+
+**Interrogatory No. 1:** State the fair market value of all assets in which Defendant has an ownership interest.
+
+**Interrogatory No. 2:** Identify all financial statements or other documents from which net worth Interrogatory No. 1 was calculated.
+
+**Interrogatory No. 3:** State gross liabilities, expenses, and other offsets to net worth, and identify all documents from which such items were calculated or determined.
+
+[Redacted text block]
+
+Interrogatory No. 4: List all real property, by legal description and/or street address, in which Defendant holds an ownership interest, and state for each the title holder of the property shown in the public records, and identify the nature and extent of Defendant's ownership.
+
+Interrogatory No. 5. List all corporations, partnerships and other business entities in which Defendant has an ownership interest or had no ownership in the past five (5) years. As to each entity, list the address and nature of the business, and the Defendant's ownership interest.
+
+Interrogatory No. 6: Identify all firms or companies which have performed property appraisals of Defendant's assets in the past five (5) years.
+
+Interrogatory No. 7: List all cars, boats, airplanes and other modes of transportation in which Defendant has an ownership interest. As to each, list the year, make and model, the appraised value, and the percent of Defendant's ownership interest.
+
+Interrogatory No. 8: Identify all persons, firms and companies which have performed tax or accounting related functions for Defendant in the past ten (10) years.
+
+Interrogatory No. 9: Identify all employees of Defendant whose duties or functions include accounting, bookkeeping or financial planning.
+
+Interrogatory No. 10: Identify any and all transfers of assets or property made by you or for which you signed any document or otherwise authorized, from January 1, 2006 to present.
+
+Interrogatory No. 11: Identify all foreign firms, companies and trusts in which you have an ownership interest.
+
+Interrogatory No. 12: Identify all firms or institutions in which Defendant has maintained an investment, brokerage, savings and/or trust account in the past five (5) years.
+
+Interrogatory No. 13: Identify all current employment and other sources of income from 2008 to present.
+
+# The Requests For Production
+
+Request No. 1: All Federal and State income tax returns, including all W-2 forms, 1099 forms and schedules, for tax years 2003-2008.
+
+Request No. 2: All documents relating to the assets, liabilities, income, expenses and net worth of Defendant, including without limitation, the following for each of the past five (5) years.
+
+Request No. 3: All documentation which refer or relate to financing or loans requested or applied for by the Defendant, including loan applications, appraisals, financial spreadsheets, etc.
+
+Request No. 4: Any and all appraisals indicating fair market value of real estate or other property of Defendant.
+
+Request No. 5: Any and all documents referring or relating to investment or savings accounts, including without limitation, account statements and summaries.
+
+In Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Case No. 80119, the Magistrate Judge found, "[iln 2008, Epstein entered into aNon-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the United States Attorney General's Office for the Federal Southern District of Florida and the State Attorney's Office for Palm Beach County. Under the terms of the NPA, any criminal prosecution against Epstein is deferred as long as he abides by the certain terms and conditions contained therein. If at any time the USAO's Office has reason to believe Epstein is in breach of the Agreement, it need only provide Epstein's counsel with notice of the breach and then move forward with Epstein's prosecution. Accordingly, the undersigned would agree with Epstein ... that the fact there exists aNPA does not mean that Epstein is free from future criminal prosecution, and that in fact, `the threat of prosecution is real, substantial and present.'" 5if August 4, 2009 Order (DE 242) and September 9, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE 293); and Manson v. United States, 244 U.S. 362, 365 (1917). Moreover, as this court knows, the NPA only defers prosecution in the Southern District of Florida, not other districts. Therefore, Epstein is "confronted by a substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazard [I of incrimination" when it comes to Plaintiff's discovery requests. United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980).
+
+The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial compulsion and provides, in relevant part, that "[TIE) person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be awitness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); g also edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not only to answers that would support acriminal conviction, but extends also to those answers which would furnish alink in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for acrime. ee Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). Information is protected by the privilege not only if it would support acriminal conviction, but also in those instances where "the responses would merely 'provide alead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate." See Uni States v. Neff 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cent denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (ED. PA. 2001).
+
+The Court has already ruled on questions similar to the ones posed by Plaintiffs and which seek similar identifying (or production of) information that could be used to incriminate Epstein, would furnish alink in the chain of evidence used to prosecute him and would require Epstein to be awitness against himself.
+
+# b. Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege Should Be Sustained As To Interrogatory No.s 5. 6. 8, 9, 11, 12 And 13 Because Each Seek To Have Epstein Identify Witnesses That Could Testify Against Him
+
+The court sustained Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege as it related to interrogatories that would require Epstein to identify employees and/or witnesses that could testify against Epstein. (DE 242, p.7-11 & DE 293). Here, Plaintiff's Interrogatory No.s 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 ask Epstein to, among other things, list corporations, partnerships and other entitled that Epstein has/had an ownership interest, identify all firms emoloved by Epstein that have performed services for Epstein. identify all persons, fums and companies employed by Epstein that have performed tax or accounting work for Epstein, identify all employees of (Epsteinjwhose duties or functions include accounting, bookkeeping or financial planning. identify all foreign firms, companies and trust in which (Epstein has/ an ownership interest, identify all institutions in which Epstein has maintained accounts with and identify all current employment and other sources of income for Epstein?
+
+These interrogatories seek compelled statements that could reasonably "furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein in future criminal proceedings or even support acriminal conviction." See infra regarding In sum, the above interrogatories ask Epstein to identify corporations, firms, institutions and trusts he has/had an interest in, employees, accountants, tax advisors, bookkeepers and Epstein's
+
+If Epstein cannot be forced to identify witnesses against him 242 and 293, then it goes without saying that he cannot be forced to identify persons, employees, accountants, tax advisors, bookkeepers, witnesses, entities/institutions, corporations and/or trusts that could result in Epstein providing alink to witnesses that could testify against him. In particular, identifying all corporations, partnerships, and other business entities in which he had/has an interest (Interrogatory No. 5), all rums or companies employed by Epstein to conduct appraisals (Interrogatory No. 6), all firms or companies employed by Epstein to perform tax or accounting functions(Interrogatory No. 8), all of Epstein's employees that performed accounting, bookkeeping or financial planning (Interrogatory No. 9), all foreign firms, companies or trusts in which he has an ownership interest (Interrogatory No. II), all firms or institutions in which he had an investment, brokerage, savings or trust account (Interrogatory No. 12) and his current employment (Interrogatory No. 13), would violate his Fifth Amendment rights and should also be sustained because requiring him to respond could "... reveal the availability to him and/or use by him of "interstate facilities" and thus would constitute a link in the chain of evidence that could potentially expose him to the dangers of selfincrimination." at DE 282 and 293. This same argument applies to Interrogatory Numbers 4 and 7 which request that Epstein identify all real property in his name and his cars, boats and airplanes, all of which could reveal the availability to him and/or use of interstate facilities. DE 293. lee infra with regard to argument as to how the requested information could also lead to Epstein's whereabouts — a fact this court ruled as being crucial to this case and the other related cases. (DE 293, p.5).
+
+current employment, all of which could result in Epstein providing information that could implicate him and could result in Epstein providing ahint or a clue as to who may have knowledge of the events in question. (DE 242 & 293) Asking Epstein to identify such information will implicate the Fifth Amendment, force him to incriminate himself in the commission of crimes and force Epstein to provide compelled information. ate es., DE 242. This is the same thing as asking Epstein to identify and provide alist of his employees, which the court has already ruled would be tantamount to asking Epstein to ". . .identify potential witnesses against him. . ." (DE 242, p. 9-11) See also, infra.
+
+Requiring Epstein to list and delineate the requested information constitutes compelled testimonial admissions that could potentially provide a'lead or clue' or a link in the chain of evidence having a tendency to incriminate Epstein and would threaten to invade his privilege against being required to produce and/or testify. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000Xthe "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution and also covers those circumstances where the disclosures would not be directly incriminating, but could provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence).
+
+As this court recognized, Epstein can properly invoke his Fifth Amendment right to not identify any person who may have information pertaining to the alleged events. For these reasons, Epstein's justified concern with regard to answering the above interrogatories and the resulting waiver of his Fifth Amendment Privilege in this regard is substantial, real and not merely imaginative. Accordingly, Defendant's assertion of the protections afforded under the 5th, 6th, and 14'h Amendments of the United States Constitution are required to be upheld.
+
+In addition, Interrogatory No.s 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 and the information sought relate to potential federal claims of violations. See infra for more detailed and incorporated argument and DE 282 and 283, in camera.
+
+**c. *Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege And Other Objections Should Further Be Sustained As To Interrogatory Numbers 1-13 and Request to Produce Numbers 1-5***
+
+Interrogatory Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 will be addressed in this section; however, the same argument applies to Interrogatory Numbers 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 (addressed above on different grounds) and Request for Production Numbers 1-5.
+
+Epstein cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to his financial history and condition without waiving his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The requests are unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature, the subject of potential federal claims violations and thus seek information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. The information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410.
+
+(i)
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[Redacted text block consisting of multiple black bars]
+
+4 The United States Supreme Court has expressly encompassed the innocent citizen as well as the guilty within the ambit of Fifth Amendment protections (i.e., that Epstein may deny any allegation that he violated the above-described federal statutes is not in conflict with his constitutional right not to be compelled by requests to make disclosures that would further any investigation against him or incriminate him.) The Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination is accorded "liberal construction," Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486, and extends not only to answers that would in themselves support a criminal conviction, but extends also to those answers (or responses as in the instant matter) that would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a crime. Id. In practice, the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination "permits a person not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). Thus, information is protected by the privilege not only if it would support a criminal conviction, but also in those instances where "the responses would merely provide a 'lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate." United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 825 (1980).
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+Answers to the specified Interrogatories and Requests for Production could therefore provide self-incriminating information and the possibility of future criminal prosecution for an alleged violation of the above target offenses. Production would constitute a testimonial admission of the genuineness, the existence, and Epstein's control of such records, and thus presents a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination in this case, in other related cases and as well in areas that could result in criminal prosecution. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 35-36. Accordingly, any compelled testimony that provides a "lead or clue to a source of evidence of such [a] crime" is protected by Fifth Amendment. SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001). See supra. Questions seeking "testimony" regarding names of witnesses, leads to phone or travel records, or financial records that would provide leads to tax or money laundering or unlicensed money transmittal investigations are protected. See also Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)("the right against self-incrimination may be invoked if the answer would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute for a crime") and United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000). See
+
+infra for detailed argument applying the Fifth Amendment to the target offenses. Here, the information sought is financial in nature and, therefore, directly relates to Epstein's business activities and thus Answers to the specified discovery requests could provide alink in the chain of evidence used to prosecute Epstein for those crimes. Sheldon v. Sheldon, 193 B.R. 152, 162 (S.D.N.Y 1996).
+
+To the extent the discovery requests seek financial information exchanged between Epstein and the federal authorities, this court already ruled on similar requests in 80119 whereby the Plaintiffs, Jane Doe 2-7, asked the following:
+
+Request No. 2. All documents referring or relating to the United States' agreement with Defendant to defer federal prosecution subject to certain conditions, including without limitation, the operative agreement between Defendant and the United States and all amendments, revisions and supplements thereto.
+
+Request No. 3. All documents referring or relating to Defendant's agreement with the State of Florida on his plea of guilty to violations of Florida Criminal Statutes, including without limitation, the operative plea agreement and any amendments, revisions and supplements thereto.
+
+Request No.4.All documents obtained in discovery or investigation relating to either the Florida Criminal Cace or the Federal Criminal Case, including without limitation, documents obtained from any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency, the State Attorney's office and the United States Attorney's office.
+
+The court specifically held at p.17 of its Order at DE 242 that "[defendant's Motion as it relates to Production request number(s) 2, 3, 4.... is [granted]. The very act of producing documents in response to these requests is testimonial in nature, in that by production, Epstein would be implicitly communicating 'statements of fact,' to which the Fifth Amendment privilege may be validly asserted . Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 35-36. Here, not only do the subject requests involve 'statements of fact,' but the financial information sought, including tax returns,
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED] As such, Epstein's Fifth Amendment
+
+Privilege assertion as it relates to these requests should be sustained. See infra.
+
+In addition to the above argument, the specific information requested in request number 1 as to personal tax returns also seeks information that is confidential and protected by federal law, 26 U.S.C. §6103.
+
+(ii) The Fifth Amendment
+
+The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. The specified Interrogatories and Requests, if answered, may result in compelled testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter in this case [REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED] Responding to this and other related inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and, therefore, are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege. If required to respond to the requests for Production, Epstein will be implicitly communicating statements of fact, authenticating documents and testifying to their location and existence. DE 242 and 293.
+
+Under Hubbell, the Fifth Amendment encompasses compelled statements that lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence even though the statements themselves are not incriminating, and it further protects the target of a grand jury investigation from
+
+being compelled to answer questions designed to elicit information about the existence of potentially incriminating evidence including, but not limited to, financial information. (emphasis added) Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 37-38 and 43-44. Hubbell applies broadly to the specified discovery requests in the instant matter.
+
+The court will note that, as worded, the interrogatories and the requests seek information regarding Epstein's assets, ownership of assets and transfer of assets, and the requests broadly seek information relating to assets, ownership of assets, corporations and trusts and transfer of assets in locations inside and outside the United States. Defendant has already provided this court with sufficient argument at DE 282 and DE 283detailing why the production or identification of information showing or providing a clue as to Epstein's whereabouts could provide alink in the chain of evidence regarding: (a) Epstein's air travel within the United States and Foreign Territories; (b) Epstein's communications with others relating to or referring to females coming into the United States from other countries; and (c) Epstein's personal calendars and schedules. Given that the essential proof of an allegation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) would include travel records, schedules regarding trips and locations, flight records, calendars, and transportation arrangements, the court found that Epstein had made amore particularized showing because producing such information "could reveal the availability to him and/or use by him of interstate facilities and thus would constitute alink in the chain of evidence that could potentially expose [Epstein] to the dangers of self incrimination." (DE 293, p.6)
+
+Here, Plaintiffs request that Epstein identify his financial information, ownership of assets and transfers of assets inside and outside the United States, which "could reveal the availability to him and/or use by him of interstate facilities and thus would constitute a link in the chain of evidence that could potentially expose [Epstein] to the dangers of self incrimination." (DE 293, p.6). Plaintiffs wish to obtain this information to corroborate their position that Epstein has traveled, had the means to travel, and had business or residences inside and outside of the United States to allegedly transport females for purposes of sex, which is no different from the requests this Court has already ruled upon and sustained Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege in response thereto. (DE 242 & 293). In analyzing Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege, this court cannot dismiss the allegations made by other Jane Doe's in the related cases. In summary, this court reasoned that:
+
+"[i]n this and the other civil actions, Plaintiff's allege that Epstein violated certain federal and state criminal statutes in an attempt to make claims against Epstein ranging from sexual battery to intentional infliction of emotional distress. The lynchpin for the exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), which figures in some of the complaints filed, is `the use of any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce' and the analogous essential element of 18 U.S.C. §2423(b), which also figures in some of the Complaints, is (travel[s] in interstate commerce or travels into the United States or . . . travels in foreign commerce.' Accordingly, requiring Epstein to provide responses. . .would in essence be compelling him to provide assertions of fact
+
+While these Interrogatories and Requests appear to be general-identification type information, which on their face may not appear to infringe upon Epstein's rights under the 5th Amendment, responding to same would furnish Plaintiff with the ability to serve subpoenas on certain institutions, entities, employees, accountants, tax advisors, housekeepers and others in charge of the homes Epstein owns and others that are affiliated with the corporations, partnerships and other business entities Epstein has an interest in including, but not limited to, the request that Epstein list all foreign firms, companies and trusts in which Epstein has an ownership interest, which may furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict Epstein of acrime. ee (DE 282 and 293, in camera). Epstein cannot be required to waive his privileges under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and provide compelled testimony and information that may, directly or indirectly, furnish Plaintiff aclue or link in the chain of evidence used to prosecute him. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1263(the "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution and also covers those circumstances where the disclosures would not be directly incriminating, but could provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence). Essentially, Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests seek to have Epstein be awitness against himself, assist with Plaintiffs' investigation and identify areas that could result in future prosecution of Epstein, including the
+
+Next, ". . . Epstein's whereabouts. . .[is] crucial [to the] issues in this case and other related cases and . . . if he is forced to reveal [certain] information, these testimonial disclosures could subsequently be used to incriminate him and/or prosecute him for a criminal offense." (DE 293, p.4-5) The court correctly recognized that "the lynchpin for the exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), which figures in some of the complaints filed, is `the use of any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce' and the analogous essential element of 18 U.S.C. §2423(b), which also figures in some of the Complaints, is `travel[s] in interstate commerce or travels into the United States or . . . travels in foreign commerce." Accordingly, if Epstein's telephone records are protected from disclosure under the Fifth Amendment it goes without saying that his financial information is also protected from disclosure as revealing same could result in subsequent subpoenas for information that may identify his whereabouts on a particular day and time and may also lead to the identity of witnesses that may have knowledge of the alleged events. In particular, Interrogatory Numbers 1-13 and Request Numbers 1-2, 4 and 5 all seek information that could provide alink in the chain as to Epstein's whereabouts, which could result in self-incrimination and future criminal prosecution.
+
+Even so, Epstein cannot be compelled to provide information that would lead to the identity of witnesses that may have knowledge of the alleged events. In sum, Epstein cannot be required to be awitness against himself or provide information that may incriminate him and lead to future prosecution. Each of the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaints includes allegations that Epstein is of "tremendous wealth, power and influence." ate es., DE 62,18. Each Plaintiff seeks in excess of 50 million dollars. The Second Amended Complaint states that'MIMI Epstein's assistant" was a part of "Epstein's plan and scheme (which) reflected a particular pattern and method" in the alleged recruiting of girl's to come to Epstein's Palm Beach mansion and give him "massages" in exchange for money. See 2 nd Am. Complaint, 111-13 (emphasis added) Plaintiff also alleges that Epstein "maintains his principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. ME and Palm Beach, FL." J. 18. "Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. 110. The nature of the allegations are serious, and state clearly that the alleged assaults occurred in Florida, New York and in Lt a
+
+The foregoing allegations demonstrate clearly how information concerning Epstein's whereabouts and his financial condition are sustainable under the Fifth Amendment. Given the importance of interstate and foreign travel, Epstein's whereabouts, the assets or businesses he owns and any other identifying financial information relating to his whereabouts is protected under the Fifth Amendment because being compelled to provide same could potentially identify witnesses to testify against Epstein, thereby resulting in testimonial authentication, location, possession and the existence of certain information and self-incrimination. Here, there is too close a nexus between the information sought and the pivotal jurisdictional requisites of 18 U.S.C. 2422(bXthe use of "interstate facilities" and 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)(the requirement of interstate travel i.e., Epstein's places of employment, locations of homes and businesses in and out of the United States and his assets). As such, answers to the specified discovery requests will obviously reveal Epstein's whereabouts (or possible whereabouts), which could provide leads to other evidence that could inculpate Epstein. If Epstein is compelled to provide any information relative to the Specified Requests that information could subsequently be used to incriminate him and it might be used to establish the elements of the target offenses identified above.
+
+Moreover, the allegations clearly provide that Epstein is rich and spent substantial sums on the matters that are the subject of the civil complaints. Therefore, in connection with the target offenses setout above and the NM, Epstein has a Fifth Amendment privilege not to admit he has any money, wealth, interests in any businesses, partnerships and/or corporations since doing so would constitute links in the chain of evidence that would pose a specific hazard of self-incrimination and prosecution.
+
+Next, requiring Epstein to provide responses to the contested production requests would in essence constitute atestimonial admission of the genuineness, the existence, and Epstein's control of such records, and thus presents areal and substantial danger of selfincrimination in this case, in other related cases and as well in areas that could result in criminal prosecution. ags generally Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486 and Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36; In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993)(noting that in those instances where the existence and/or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production implicitly authenticates the requested documents, the act of producing responsive documents is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment). It is evident from the requests themselves, the allegations in the various Complaints, and the facts and circumstances surrounding these cases, that to demand from Epstein amore particularized showing, requires Epstein to walk athin line with regard to "surrender[ing) the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 479. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth Amendment Privilege also encompasses the circumstance where "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect!'" Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36; sfyi also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Inerimination, §138 (6th Ed.). The "implicit authentication" rationale appears to be the prevailing justification for the Fifth Amendment's application to documentary subpoenas, which is no different from producing documents responsive to a request for production. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36 (2000); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S., 757, 763-764, (1966) ("the privilege reaches . .. the compulsion of responses which are also communications, for example, compliance with a subpoena to produce one's papers) v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 344-46 (1973) (the person complying with the subpoena "implicitly testifies that the evidence he brings forth is in fact the evidence demanded"); People v. De£ore, 242 N.Y. 13,27 (19261 ("A defendant is 'protected from producing his documents in response to a Subpoena duces tecum, for his production of them in court would be his voucher of their genuineness.' There would then be `testimonial compulsion' ").
+
+For these reasons, Epstein's justified concern with regard to answering the above Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and the resulting waiver of his Fifth Amendment Privilege in this regard and/or providing self-incriminating information is substantial, real and not merely imaginative. Accordingly, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, and under applicable law, Defendant's assertion of the protections afforded under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution are required to be upheld.
+
+# (iii) Third Party Privacy Rights
+
+Here, Interrogatory Numbers 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11-13 also seek information that may violate others' third-party privacy rights. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, at fn. 10 (1972):
+
+In Stanley, 394 U.S., at 564, 89 S.Ct., at 1247, the Court stated:'(A)Iso fundamental is the right to be free, except in very limited circumstances, from unwanted governmental intrusions into one's privacy." The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, p leasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man.' [Citations omitted].
+
+The fundamental right of privacy is not only guaranteed under by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, but also under the Constitution of the State of Florida, Art. I, Sect. 23. As summarized by the Florida Supreme Court in Shalcunan v. State, 553 So.2d 148, 150-51 (Fla. 1989):
+
+The right of privacy, assured to Florida's citizens, demands that individuals be free from uninvited observation of or interference in those aspects of their lives which fall within the ambit of this zone of privacy unless the intrusion is warranted by the necessity of a compelling state interest. In an opinion which predated the adoption of section 23, the First District aptly characterized the nature of this right.
+
+A fundamental aspect of personhood's integrity is the power to control what we shall reveal about our intimate selves, to whom, and for what purpose.
+
+Bryon, Harless, Schaffer. Reid & Assocs.. Inc. v. State ex rel, Schellenberg, 360 So.2d 83, 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), quashed and remanded on other grounds, 379 So.2d 633 (Fla.1980). Because this power is exercised in varying degrees by differing individuals, the parameters of an individual's privacy can be dictated only by that individual. The central concern is the inviolability of one's own thought, person, and personal action. The inviolability of that right assures its preeminence over "majoritarian sentiment" and thus cannot be universally defined by consensus.
+
+(Emphasis added).
+
+Clearly, the nature of the questions identified would require Epstein to list information that may identify third parties (that could also testify against him) and necessarily thwart such individuals' rights to assert their constitutional right of privacy as guaranteed under the United States and Florida Constitutions as well as their rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
+
+Accordingly, Defendant's assertion of the protections afforded under the 51h, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution are required to be upheld.
+
+Wherefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court issue and order:
+
+- a. finding that the danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this case relative to the above interrogatories and produce or identify the specified documents is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary;
+- b. sustaining Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege and other delineated constitutional privileges as it relates to the above interrogatories and requests and denying Plaintiff's Motion in that regard; and
+- c. for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
+
+Respectfully
+
+By: MICHAEL J. PHCE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+#### Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that atrue copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of November, 2009
+
+Respectfull mitted,
+
+T D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 scrit@bc1claw.colil
+
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mnike@bc1claw.con1 BURMAN, CR1TTON, LU l ilt.R & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+#### Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey E Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/iiill.
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mennelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ssnasexabuseattomev.com ahorowitz@.sexabuseattomev.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994
+
+Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. 2290 10'h Avenue North Suite 404
+
+Lake Worth, FL 33461 561-582-7600 Fax: 561-588-8819 Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 0840811 reelrbw©hotmail,com
+
+Jack Scarla, Esq. Jack P. In, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley,
+
+Brad Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-522-3456 Fax: 954-527-8663 bedwards@sra-law.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax cassellrQlaw.utah.edu Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe
+
+, Esq. Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469
+
+P.A.
+
+2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
+West Palm Beach, FL 33409
+561-686-6300
+Fax: 561-383-9424
+[jsx@searcylaw.com](mailto:jsx@searcylaw.com)
+[jph@searcylaw.com](mailto:jph@searcylaw.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A.*
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+Miami, FL 33130
+305 358-2800
+Fax: 305 358-2382
+[rjosefsberg@podhurst.com](mailto:rjosefsberg@podhurst.com)
+[kezell@podhurst.com](mailto:kezell@podhurst.com)
+
+Bruce Reinhart, Esq.
+Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A.
+250 S. Australian Avenue
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561-202-6360
+Fax: 561-828-0983
+[ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com](mailto:ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com)
+*Counsel for Defendant*
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases*
+Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+561-659-8300
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+[jagesq@bellsouth.net](mailto:jagesq@bellsouth.net)
+
+Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
+Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq.
+Leopold, Kuvin, P.A.
+2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200
+Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
+561-684-6500
+Fax: 561-515-2610
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.*
+08-08804
+
+*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein*
+
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-Mill
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+v.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+### DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF NET WORTH DOCUMENTS DATED JUNE 29, 2009
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, serves his Responses and Objections to the Request for Production of Net Worth Documents and states:
+
+Request No. 1: All Federal and State income tax returns, including all W-2 forms, 1099 forms and schedules, for tax years 2003-2008
+
+Response and Objections to Request Number 1: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in asupplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for
+
+all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense, however responding to this and other relating inquiries have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information that would be protected. More specifically, the act of producing the above information may implicitly communicate statements of fact in that they would implicitly authenticate the requested information, require Epstein to admit that the requested information exists and admit that same were in his possession, custody and control. The very act of production itself may therefore provide a link in the chain of evidence adverse to Epstein, see generally United States vHubbell 520 US 27, 36 (2000)
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the request for production as unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The specific information requested as to tax returns also seeks information that is confidential and protected by federal law, 26 USC 6103. Further, Plaintiffs Complaint alleges atime period of in or about 2004-2005.v Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period from 2003-2008.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be produced, it should not be produced without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be produced at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+Request No. 2: All documents relating to the assets, liabilities, income, expenses and net worth of Defendant, including without limitation, the following for each of the past five (5) years.
+
+- a. annual financial reports;
+- b. balance sheets;
+- c. income statements;
+- d. cash flow statements;
+- e. quarterly financial reports;
+- f. budget reports; and
+- g. financial analysis
+
+Response and Objections to Request Number 2: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments
+
+as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense, however responding to this and other relating inquiries have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information that would be protected. More specifically, the act of producing the above information may implicitly communicate statements of fact in that they would implicitly authenticate the requested information, require Epstein to admit that the requested information exists and admit that same were in his possession, custody and control. The very act of production itself may therefore provide a link in the chain of evidence adverse to Epstein, see generally United States v Hubbell 520 US 27, 36 (2000)
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the request for production as unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period of the past five (5) years.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be produced, it should not be produced without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be produced at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+**Request No. 3:** All documentation which refer or relate to financing or loans requested or applied for by the Defendant, including loan applications, appraisals, financial spreadsheets, etc.
+
+**Response and Objections to Request Number 3:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments
+
+as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense, however responding to this and other relating inquiries have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information that would be protected. More specifically, the act of producing the above information may implicitly communicate statements of fact in that they would implicitly authenticate the requested information, require Epstein to admit that the requested information exists and admit that same were in his possession, custody and control. The very act of production itself may therefore provide a link in the chain of evidence adverse to Epstein, see generally United States v Hubbell 520 US 27, 36 (2000)
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the request for production as unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2002 to present.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be produced, it should not be produced without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be produced at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+**Request No. 4:** Any and all appraisals indicating fair market value of real estate or other property of Defendant.
+
+**Response and Objections to Request Number 4:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference
+
+under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense, however responding to this and other relating inquiries have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information that would be protected. More specifically, the act of producing the above information may implicitly communicate statements of fact in that they would implicitly authenticate the requested information, require Epstein to admit that the requested information exists and admit that same were in his possession, custody and control. The very act of production itself may therefore provide a link in the chain of evidence adverse to Epstein, see generally United States v Hubbell 520 US 27, 36 (2000)
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the request for production as unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2002 to present.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be produced, it should not be produced without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be produced at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+**Request No. 5:** Any and all documents referring or relating to investment or savings accounts, including without limitation, account statements and summaries.
+
+**Response and Objections to Request Number 5:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference
+
+under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in asupplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense, however responding to this and other relating inquiries have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information that would be protected. More specifically, the act of producing the above information may implicitly communicate statements of fact in that they would implicitly authenticate the requested information, require Epstein to admit that the requested Information exists and admit that same were in his possession, custody and control. The very act of production itself may therefore provide alink in the chain of evidence adverse to Epstein, see generally United States vHubbell 520 US 27, 36 (MO)
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the request for production as unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges atime period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2002 to present.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be produced, it should not be produced without limitations (Including confidentiality), and should only be produced at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+# Certificate of Service
+
+WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing ha een sent S. Mail,and facsimile to the following addressees this day of , 2009.
+
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, PA. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300
+
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com
+iherman@hermanlaw.com
+lrivera@hermanlaw.com
+Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2
+
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+jagesq@bellsouth.net
+Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey
+Epstein
+
+![]()![]()(Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-.J.I.
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+v.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+# DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S NET WORTH INTERROGATORIES DATED JUNE 29. 2009
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, serves his answers and objections to Plaintiff's Net Worth Interrogatories, dated June 29, 2009 and states:
+
+Interrogatory No. 1: State the fair market value of all assets in which Defendant has an ownership Interest.
+
+Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 1: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional\_privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges atime
+
+period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a time period from January 1, 2002 to present. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+**Interrogatory No. 2:** Identify all financial statements or other documents from which net worth Interrogatory No. 1 was calculated.
+
+**Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 2:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to
+
+lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges atime period of "in or about 2004-2005.\$ Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a time period from January 1, 2002 to present. The information sought Is also privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in asupplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential to provide alink in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but before trial In order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+Interrogatory No. 3: State gross liabilities, expenses, and other offsets to net worth, and identify all documents from which such items were calculated or determined.
+
+Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 3: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse Inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitut[onal rights. would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential,
+
+proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a time period from January 1, 2002 to present. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+**Interrogatory No. 4:** List all real property, by legal description and/or street address, in which Defendant holds an ownership interest, and state for each the title holder of the property shown in the public records, and identify the nature and extent of Defendant's ownership.
+
+**Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 4:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a time period from January 1, 2002 to present. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+**Interrogatory No. 5:** List all corporations, partnerships and other business entities in which Defendant has an ownership interest or had no ownership in the past five (5) years. As to each entity, list the address and nature of the business, and the Defendant's ownership interest.
+
+**Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 5:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference
+
+under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for the past five (5) years. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+**Interrogatory No. 6:** Identify all firms or companies which have performed property appraisals of Defendant's assets in the past five (5) years.
+
+**Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 6:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments
+
+as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for the past five (5) years. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+**Interrogatory No. 7:** List all cars, boats, airplanes and other modes of transportation in which Defendant has an ownership interest. As to each, list the year, make and model, the appraised value, and the percent of Defendant's ownership interest.
+
+Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 7: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition
+
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. Ewe— Page 8
+
+without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges atime period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a time period from January 1, 2002 to present. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in asupplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, Including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential to provide alink in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+Interrogatory No. 8: Identify all persons, firms and companies which have performed tax or accounting related functions for Defendant in the past ten (10)years.
+
+Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 8: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for
+
+production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for the past ten (10) years. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+**Interrogatory No. 9:** Identify all employees of Defendant whose duties or functions include accounting, bookkeeping or financial planning.
+
+**Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 9:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain
+
+U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a time period from January 1, 2002 to present. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+---
+
+**Interrogatory No. 10:** Identify any and all transfers of assets or property made by you or for which you signed any document or otherwise authorized, from January 1, 2006 to present.
+
+**Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 10:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a time period from January 1, 2006 to present. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+**Interrogatory No. 11:** Identify all foreign firms, companies and trusts in which you have an ownership interest.
+
+**Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 11:** : Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a time period from January 1, 2002 to present. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+**Interrogatory No. 12:** Identify all firms or institutions in which Defendant has maintained an investment, brokerage, savings and/or trust account in the past five (5) years.
+
+**Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 12:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for the past five (5) years. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+---
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but
+
+before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+**Interrogatory No. 13:** Identify all current employment and other sources of income from 2008 to present.
+
+**Response and Objections to Interrogatory Number 13:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information from 2008 to present. The information sought is also privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the NPA and, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and Fla. Stat. 90.410.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This interrogatory, if answered, would require testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other relating inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be provided, it should not be provided without limitations (including
+
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. EPSTEIN
+Page 15
+
+confidentiality), and should only be provided at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+![]()STATE OF FLORIDA )
+COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
+
+I hereby certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared JEFFRY E. EPSTEIN, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Interrogatories who acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above-named person: personally known/identification, and that an oath was/was not taken.
+
+WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 31 day of August, 2009.
+
+![]()PRINT JESSICA CADWELL
+Notary Public/State of Florida
+Commission #: DD853529
+
+Expires: 04/19/2013
+
+My Commission
+
+
+
+Certificate of Service
+
+WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 27 day of August, 2009.
+
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq.
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+Suite 2218
+Miami, FL 33160
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com
+iherman@hermanlaw.com
+lrivera@hermanlaw.com
+*Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2*
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+561-659-8300
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+jagesg@bellsouth.net
+*Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein*
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+![]()*(Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749005/EFTA02749005.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749005/EFTA02749005.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f95211cd2be7c1d77e8c87b394fb8b368109e7ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749005/EFTA02749005.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,2006 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749005.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 47,
+ "chars": 101816,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 33.22,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_45_Picture_144.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.856,
+ 86.67
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.04,
+ 86.67
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.04,
+ 114.20999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.856,
+ 114.20999999999998
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Defendant's Response In Opposition to Jane Doe 2-8s Motion to Compel Net Worth Discovery, With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 322.38
+ ],
+ [
+ 522.648,
+ 322.38
+ ],
+ [
+ 522.648,
+ 353.96999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 353.96999999999997
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "I. Procedural Background",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.232,
+ 470.6099999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 392.904,
+ 470.6099999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 392.904,
+ 484.37999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.232,
+ 484.37999999999994
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IL Epstein's Objections Should Be Sustained Under The 5i' Amendment \nBecause The Discovery Requests Seek Testimonial And Incriminating \nInformation",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 102.20400000000001,
+ 188.73000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 488.8844299316406,
+ 188.73000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 488.8844299316406,
+ 231.66
+ ],
+ [
+ 102.20400000000001,
+ 231.66
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "a- Introduction and Discovery Requests",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 203.796,
+ 243.81
+ ],
+ [
+ 422.76263427734375,
+ 243.81
+ ],
+ [
+ 422.76263427734375,
+ 259.47747802734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 203.796,
+ 259.47747802734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "The Interrogatories",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 264.996,
+ 431.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 361.692,
+ 431.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 361.692,
+ 447.12000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 264.996,
+ 447.12000000000006
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "The Requests For Production",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 243.57600000000002,
+ 629.3700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.0895080566406,
+ 629.3700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.0895080566406,
+ 645.87890625
+ ],
+ [
+ 243.57600000000002,
+ 645.87890625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "b. Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege Should Be Sustained As To Interrogatory \nNo.s 5. 6. 8, 9, 11, 12 And 13 Because Each Seek To Have Epstein Identify Witnesses \nThat Could Testify Against Him",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 588.87
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.8842163085938,
+ 588.87
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.8842163085938,
+ 632.7237243652344
+ ],
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 632.7237243652344
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "c. Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege And Other Objections Should Further Be Sustained As To Interrogatory Numbers 1-13 and Request to Produce Numbers 1-5",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 148.71599999999998,
+ 168.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 473.076,
+ 168.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 473.076,
+ 212.22000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 148.71599999999998,
+ 212.22000000000003
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(ii) The Fifth Amendment",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 275.40000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 400.86,
+ 275.40000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 400.86,
+ 291.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 291.6
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(iii) Third Party Privacy Rights",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 216.036,
+ 458.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 436.23388671875,
+ 458.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 436.23388671875,
+ 474.96478271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 216.036,
+ 474.96478271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 258.264,
+ 481.14
+ ],
+ [
+ 366.6796875,
+ 481.14
+ ],
+ [
+ 366.6796875,
+ 494.09999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 258.264,
+ 494.09999999999997
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service \nJane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey E \nCase No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/iiill.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 231.66
+ ],
+ [
+ 422.884521484375,
+ 231.66
+ ],
+ [
+ 422.884521484375,
+ 270.54
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 270.54
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 216.036,
+ 102.06
+ ],
+ [
+ 408.20400000000006,
+ 102.06
+ ],
+ [
+ 408.20400000000006,
+ 127.34619140625
+ ],
+ [
+ 216.036,
+ 127.34619140625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO \nPLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF NET WORTH \nDOCUMENTS DATED JUNE 29, 2009",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 134.02800000000002,
+ 290.78999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 493.884,
+ 290.78999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 493.884,
+ 331.28999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 134.02800000000002,
+ 331.28999999999996
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 261.324,
+ 517.59
+ ],
+ [
+ 378.5325927734375,
+ 517.59
+ ],
+ [
+ 378.5325927734375,
+ 531.89990234375
+ ],
+ [
+ 261.324,
+ 531.89990234375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 31,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 222.15599999999998,
+ 98.01
+ ],
+ [
+ 420.25140380859375,
+ 98.01
+ ],
+ [
+ 420.25140380859375,
+ 125.72052001953125
+ ],
+ [
+ 222.15599999999998,
+ 125.72052001953125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS \nTO PLAINTIFF'S NET WORTH INTERROGATORIES \nDATED JUNE 29. 2009",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 31,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 137.7,
+ 286.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 507.8973388671875,
+ 286.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 507.8973388671875,
+ 329.88092041015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 137.7,
+ 329.88092041015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 46,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 262.548,
+ 122.30999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 376.38,
+ 122.30999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 376.38,
+ 136.89000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 262.548,
+ 136.89000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 251
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 365
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 103
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 400
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 37
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 387
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 394
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 558
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 37
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 396
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 254
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 264
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 401
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 311
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 359
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 419
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 375
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 379
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 400
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 417
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 402
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 265
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 313
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 351
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 37
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 527
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 499
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 31,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 336
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 38
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 32,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 33,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 547
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 34,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 35,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 36,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 37,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 38,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 552
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 39,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 40,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 41,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 42,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 43,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 44,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 45,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 81
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 46,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749005"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749005/_page_45_Picture_144.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749005/_page_45_Picture_144.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74a2d6eb0351a9a6d2f006c31d65c9e3bcd6e662
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749005/_page_45_Picture_144.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:8d8e4697fb6b7a7d1f701af97ce1fc503e55679e3868ae0805df2c830ca51bf0
+size 11171
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749052/EFTA02749052.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749052/EFTA02749052.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17c28c4ae71dd57eb72161aaab32646b6bf690d5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749052/EFTA02749052.md
@@ -0,0 +1,197 @@
+### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRS
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+# Defendant's Response In Opposition to Jane Doe 2-8s' Rule 4 Appeal (DE 493), With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law
+
+Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Response In Opposition to Jane Doe 2-8s Rule 4 Appeal (DE 493), With Memorandum Of Law. In support, Epstein states:
+
+### I. Procedural Background
+
+Plaintiffs served their First Request for Production of Net Worth documents and Interrogatories, and Epstein served his responses and objections thereto. See Composite Exhibits "A" and "B" attached to the Responses In Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (DE 390). The Interrogatory Responses/Objections and the Responses/Objections to the Requests for Production and the arguments set forth in the initial opposition motion (DE 390)(attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are incorporated herein by reference.
+
+Previously, this Court entered orders (DE 242 and 293) sustaining several of Epstein's objections under the Fifth Amendment. Many of the instant requests are covered by the Court's orders at DE 242 and 293. At DE 480, the court granted sua sponte (which is not the subject of this appeal), the in camera submissions provided to the court by Epstein and, in particular, it noted the "unique circumstances of this case" relative to, among other things, the sensitive 5th Amendment issues outlined therein. DE 480 at pp. 4-5; See also 242 and 293.
+
+It appears that Plaintiffs take issue with the court's rulings relative to document request numbers 2-5 and interrogatory numbers 1-13, which shall be specifically addressed below.
+
+## a. Argument
+
+Since these cases have been consolidated for discovery, abrief outline of prior rulings is necessary in order to maintain consistency. The Magistrate Judge found that several prior requests were ". . . testimonial in nature, in that by production, Epstein would be implicitly communicating `statements of fact' to which the Fifth Amendment privilege may be validly asserted." (DE 242).
+
+The Magistrate in the instant matter made the same ruling specifically finding that the net worth information sought encompassed ". . .compelled statements/admissions. . ." which could result in Epstein's waiver of the Fifth Amendment, would require [Epstein] to be awitness against himself and could result in ". . .forc[ed] testimonial disclosures . . . ." (DE 480, p.6-7) The court also found that "[t]he potential for providing a"link" is high when one considers that by forcing [Epstein] to respond, he will [not only] be implicitly communicating statements of fact, authenticating documents and testifying to their location, [but] as well. . . providing clues as to the identity and location of witnesses that by such disclosure may serve to further acriminal investigation against [Epstein.]"
+
+What Plaintiffs Rule 4 Appeal misses or intentionally ignores is that this is not a case wherein a subpoena or request for production was served on a non-party, but one which was served directly on Epstein. Therefore, the "act of production doctrine" as well as the testimonial privilege against self-incrimination was correctly and specifically applied to each net worth request (see argument infra) and, thus, the court correctly ruled that Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege must be sustained as it has correctly been applied relative to similar requests throughout this litigation.
+
+For example, Plaintiff (Jane Doe) also sought Request for Admissions dealing with Epstein's "financial history," "net worth," "fraudulent conveyances" and "realestate ownership." (Order at DEs 462 at p.5 and 342-1)) Plaintiff also sought to compel interrogatory responses dealing with Epstein's ". . . financial history information such as what assets Epstein has, where such assets are located, and whether such assets have been transferred or fraudulently concealed. . ." and ". . .the names of Epstein's current accountants, financial planners or money mangers . . ... (DEs 462 at p.6 and 343) Finally, Plaintiff sought ". . . financial information in formation documents. . . ." (DE 462 at p. 10 and 341-1). The court categorically and respectively sustained Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege to the foregoing and stated, among other things, that:
+
+& lt;`. . .[T]o force him to respond to the these requests would involve compelled statements that could reasonably furnish alink in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein in future criminal proceedings or even support acriminal conviction. . .." (DE 462 at p.5, 6 and 7)
+
+"Given the allegations raised in the various Complaints and the elements required to convict Epstein of a crime, and considering the background facts [including the in camera submissions] underlying the case, these concerns are reasonable, real and not unjustified." (DE 462 at p.5-6)
+
+"In sustaining Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege, the court has considered the facts alleged in the Complaints, the elements needed to convict Epstein of a crime, the particularized showing made in Epstein's Response Brief and in camera submission, and drawn upon the Court's knowledge of the cases at issue. On this basis, the court finds that the privilege raised as to these requests valid, and asserted by Epstein only with reference to `genuinely threatening questions." United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5`h Cir. 1980). (DE 462 at p.10-11)
+
+Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that this court made the correct ruling relative to Epstein's net worth information as the requests are similar and rulings have been consistent, have always considered the in camera submissions and have always been supported by the law.
+
+Likewise, this Court denied Plaintiff's motion relative to requests seeking telephone records of calls made by Epstein to his employees. This Court denied Plaintiff's motion relative to interrogatories seeking the names of Epstein's employees or their telephone numbers finding that same "would furnish alink in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein of acrime." (DE 242, p.8-9). Additionally, this Court denied Plaintiff's motion relative to interrogatories that required Epstein to identify persons or witnesses that have knowledge of the events in question. Id. at p. 8. In ruling, the court recognized that ". . . the facts alleged in the Amended Complaints, the elements needed to convict Epstein of a crime, and . . . the Court's knowledge concerning the cases at issue" provide abasis for Epstein to raise the privilege based upon "genuinely threatening questions" which could furnish alink in the chain of evidence needed to convict Epstein of acrime. (DE 242, p.18) United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5'h Cir. 1980). Now, Plaintiffs wish to side-step these orders and attempt to obtain similar information (i.e., net worth information potentially containing incriminating information and requiring Epstein to be awitness against himself) that has already been determined to be protected by the Fifth Amendment.
+
+For instance, the court has specifically recognized:
+
+In this and the other civil actions, Plaintiffs allege that Epstein violated certain federal and state criminal statutes in an attempt to make claims against Epstein ranging from sexual battery to intentional infliction of emotional distress. The lynchpin for the exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), which figures in some of the Complaints filed, is "the use if any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce" and the analogous essential element of 18 U.S.C. §2423(b), which also figures in some of the Complaints, is "travel[s] in interstate commerce or travels in to the United States ... travels in foreign commerce." Accordingly, requiring Epstein to provide responses to the subject production requests would in essence be compelling him to provide assertions of fact, thereby admitting that such documents existed and further admitting that the documents in his possession or control were authentic. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, IF.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993) (noting that in those instances where the existence and/or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would "implicitly authenticate" the requested documents, the act of producing responsive documents is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment)(DE 293).
+
+The net worth information sought here could very well provide alink in the chain of evidence necessary to prosecute Epstein for acrime under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) and §2423(b), and could also provide information showing Epstein's availability and/or use of any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce. Therefore, requiring Epstein to respond to the net worth requests here is tantamount to requiring him to provide testimonial admissions and to be awitness against himself. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993).
+
+Again, Epstein was the subject of a grand jury investigation by the United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida ("USAO") - U.S. Department of Justice, which convened in 2007. The target offenses of that investigation are specifically outlined in the in camera submissions provided to this court and, therefore, cannot be ignored. Furthermore, the target offenses were specifically considered by this court as outlined herein. ke also DE 480. If leave is granted, amore particularized submission could be made demonstrating that Epstein's fears are well-grounded regarding the relationship between the requested financial information and certain offenses that were once within the broad ambit of federal criminal investigation.
+
+As this court knows, the threat of criminal prosecution for certain crimes remains real, substantial and present, and not merely trifling or imaginary. In that regard, Epstein cannot be compelled to produce or identify net worth information because doing so may support acriminal conviction for those delineated crimes, could furnish alink in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein and would require that Epstein be a witness against himself.
+
+In Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Case No. 80119, the Magistrate Judge found, "[On 2008, Epstein entered into aNon-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the United States Attorney General's Office for the Federal Southern District of Florida and the State Attorney's Office for Palm Beach County. Under the terms of the NPA, any criminal prosecution against Epstein is deferred as long as he abides by the certain terms and conditions contained therein. If at any time the USAO's Office has reason to believe Epstein is in breach of the Agreement, it need only provide Epstein's counsel with notice of the breach and then move forward with Epstein's prosecution. Accordingly, the undersigned would agree with Epstein ... that the fact there exists aNPA does not mean that Epstein is free from future criminal prosecution, and that in fact, `the threat of prosecution is real, substantial and present.'" See August 4, 2009 Order (DE 242) and September 9, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE 293); and Manson v. United States, 244 U.S. 362, 365 (1917). Moreover, as this court knows, the NPA only defers prosecution in the Southern District of Florida, not other districts. Therefore, Epstein is "confronted by a substantial and `real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazard[) of incrimination" when it comes to Plaintiff's discovery requests. United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980).
+
+# (i) The Fifth Amendment and Plaintiffs' Rule 4 Appeal
+
+The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial compulsion and provides, in relevant part, that "(n)o person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be awitness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not only to answers that would support acriminal conviction, but extends also to those answers which would furnish alink in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for acrime. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). Information is protected by the privilege not only if it would support acriminal conviction, but also in those instances where "the responses would merely `provide alead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate." See United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert denied 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001).
+
+# The Request for Production
+
+Plaintiffs claim that the "act of production doctrine" does not encompass request numbers 2-5 and that the Magistrate failed to evaluate each discovery request. As to the latter, Plaintiffs' claims are not only offensive, but fail to take into account the exact wording of the order entered by the Magistrate - "[t]he Court begins with an analysis of the Fifth Amendment privilege as applied to each request or category of requests." (Emphasis added). (DE 480, p.5); see ala DE 480 at p.5 wherein the court specifically applies the "act of production doctrine." See also supra wherein several examples are delineated whereby the Magistrate considers each request in connection with the evidence submitted to meet the particularized showing and burden including, but not limited to, the in camera submissions.
+
+The following requests are the subject of Plaintiff's Appeal:
+
+Request No. 2: All documents relating to the assets, liabilities, income, expenses and net worth of Defendant, including without limitation, the following for each of the past five (5) years.
+
+Request No. 3: All documentation which refer or relate to financing or loans requested or applied for by the Defendant, including loan applications, appraisals, financial spreadsheets, etc.
+
+Request No. 4: Any and all appraisals indicating fair market value of real estate or other property of Defendant.
+
+Request No. 5: Any and all documents referring or relating to investment or savings accounts, including without limitation, account statements and summaries.
+
+Plaintiffs fail to consider that financial statements (Request No. 2), financing or loans (Request No. 3), real estate appraisals (Request No. 4) and bank account and investment account documents (Request No. 5) have each been ruled on as stated supra in that the requests overlap certain subject matter that would force Epstein to identify employees (e.g., cancelled checks and itemized bank account statements), to identify persons or witnesses that have knowledge of the events in question (e.g., those who worked for him by and through cancelled checks and itemized bank statements), and to provide information identifying the use of any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce (e.g., financial statements, financing or loans, real estate appraisals and bank
+
+account documents — all of which could provide alink in the chain of evidence necessary to prosecute Epstein for the target offenses outlined above). Such information could also delineate Epstein's travels in interstate commerce or travels in to the United States or foreign commerce, as well as the use of or availability to Epstein of interstate facilities and could potentially corroborate many of the allegations of wrongdoing raised by p laintiffs regarding Epstein's wealth, his many residences, his use of cash, his interstate and international travel on private airplanes owned or controlled by him, and his regular payments of moneys to intermediaries as well as plaintiffs themselves all of which are allegations inextricably interwoven with the underlying federal criminal predicates that are at the heart of at least the 18 USC 2255 claims of certain plaintiffs.
+
+Finally, Jane Does 2-8 rely extensively on Fisher, which is acase involving a subpoena served on an accountant requesting that the accountant produce and authenticate adefendant's tax-work papers. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). Jane Does 2-8 also rely extensively on U.S. v. Ghidoni, 732 F.2d 814 (1 th 1984) wherein the court directed adefendant to execute a consent directive to a foreign bank allowing the bank to release records of the defendant which, according to the court, did not confirm the existence of any accounts or defendant's control over them, nor did it serve to authenticate any documents produced by the bank. Id. at 818-819. Such is NOT the case here. Plaintiffs simply has the cart before the horse. In the instant matter, Plaintiffs unequivocally request that Epstein not only produce but identify banking records and other net worth information for which Plaintiff has no prior knowledge whatsoever. That is "testimonial" in its rawest form. The Plaintiffs seemingly do not distinguish between compelling production from third parties such as a defendant's accountant (Fisher) or a defendant's foreign bank (Ghidoni) where the Defendant in no way authenticates the documents nor attests to control or genuiness or even existence and, therefore, where no Fifth Amendment, compelling production or testimonial admissions are required of said Defendant. As such, Plaintiffs entire brief is flawed by this fundamental error in analysis by resting largely on distinguishable precedents where the compulsion emanated from ademand on third parties not on the defendant himself.
+
+Accordingly, requiring Epstein to provide responses to the subject production requests would in essence be compelling him to provide assertions of fact, thereby admitting that such documents existed and further admitting that the documents in his possession or control were authentic.
+
+## The Interrogatories
+
+In the wherefore clause of their Rule 4 Appeal, Plaintiffs request that this court require Epstein to answer interrogatory numbers 1 through 13 or 1 through I1 (SIC). However, Plaintiffs offer argument only as to interrogatory numbers 1, 4 and 7. Surprisingly, it appears that Plaintiff has abandoned interrogatories 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8-13, which appear to request the same information as the above requests for production. The following interrogatories provide:
+
+Interrogatory No. 1: State the fair market value of all assets in which Defendant has an ownership interest.
+
+Interrogatory No. 4: List all real property, by legal description and/or street address, in which Defendant holds an ownership interest, and state for each the title holder of the property shown in the public records, and identify the nature and extent of Defendant's ownership.
+
+Interrogatory No. 7: List all cars, boats, airplanes and other modes of transportation in which Defendant has an ownership interest. As to each, list the year, make and model, the appraised value, and the percent of Defendant's ownership interest.
+
+Epstein cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to his financial history and condition without waiving his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, The requests are unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature, the subject of potential federal claims violations (see supra) and thus seek information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. Accordingly, any compelled testimony that provides a"lead or clue to a source of evidence of such [a] crime" is protected by Fifth Amendment. SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001). See supra.
+
+Questions seeking "testimony" regarding such financial records, assets, and information would provide "links in the chain" of evidence that could support allegations made by the plaintiffs tying the alleged underlying criminal occurrences to Epstein's wealth, travel, and ownership of expensive residences and could further provide "links in the chain" of evidence that could result in disclosures that would further any financial investigation. For those specific target offices and argument rerlated to same, see what the court has already considered sua sponte and in camera in redacted form See DE 242, 293, 390 and 480, in camera, see also Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)("the right against self-incrimination may be invoked if the answer would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute for a crime") and United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000). See in camera submissions for detailed argument applying the Fifth Amendment to the target offenses. Here, the information sought is financial in nature and, therefore, directly relates to Epstein's business activities and thus the target offenses outlined above and referenced in several orders entered by this court. Answers to the specified discovery requests could provide a link in the chain of evidence used to prosecute Epstein for those crimes. Sheldon v. Sheldon, 193 B.R. 152, 162 (S.D.N.Y 1996).
+
+Answers to the interrogatories, on their face, could also provide information showing Epstein's availability and/or use of any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce (e.g., cars, boats, planes or other modes of transportation). Therefore, requiring Epstein to respond to the net worth requests here is tantamount to requiring him to provide testimonial admissions and to be awitness against himself and to authenticate the existence of certain items. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993).
+
+For the same reasons set out above, the interrogatories seek compelled statements and further ask that Epstein authenticate and testify to the existence of certain information that could reasonably "furnish alink in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein in future criminal proceedings or even support acriminal conviction." See supra regarding target offenses as well as the in camera information submitted to the court.
+
+## II. Conclusion
+
+These discovery requests require Epstein to pick and choose documents that are responsive and/or provide testimonial disclosers that could lead to future prosecution, require Epstein to authenticate information and, in this way, force Epstein to effectively make `use of the content his mind,' an action that would undeniably implicate the Fifth Amendment." (DE 462, p.9)
+
+Moreover, under Fed.R.Civ. P. 72(a), adistrict court reviewing a Magistrate Judge's order shall only modify or set aside the order if it is "found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." See also 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1XA) and Local Magistrate Rule 4(a)(1). An order is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, after assessing the evidence in its entirety, is left with adefinite and firm conviction that amistake has been committed. ICrys v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 119 F.3d 1515, 1523 (11'h Cir. 1997); see also U.S. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). There mere fact that the reviewing court might have decided the issues differently is not sufficient to overturn a decision. Georgia State conference of Branches of NAACP v. Georgia, 775 F.2d 1403, 1416 (11'h Cir. 1985).
+
+Wherefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court issue and order:
+
+- a. Upholding the Magistrate's order;
+- b. Declining Plaintiffs' Rule 4 Appeal and continuing to sustain Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege and other delineated constitutional privileges as it relates to the above interrogatories and requests; and
+- c. for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+#### Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that atrue copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 9th day of April, 2010
+
+**Service List**
+**Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein**
+**Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/[REDACTED]**
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+Suite 2218
+Miami, FL 33160
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+[ssm@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ssm@sexabuseattorney.com)
+[ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs*
+*In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993,
+08-80994*
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+561-659-8300
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+[jagesq@bellsouth.net](mailto:jagesq@bellsouth.net)
+*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein*
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+Miami, FL 33130
+305 358-2800
+Fax: 305 358-2382
+[rjosefsberg@podhurst.com](mailto:rjosefsberg@podhurst.com)
+[kezell@podhurst.com](mailto:kezell@podhurst.com)
+
+Brad [REDACTED], Esq.
+[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos
+& Lehrman, PL
+425 N. Andrews Ave.
+Suite #2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+[Brad@pathtojustice.com](mailto:Brad@pathtojustice.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.
+08-80893*
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+*Pro Hac Vice*
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+801-585-5202
+801-585-6833 Fax
+[cassellp@law.utah.edu](mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu)
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+
+Isidro M. [REDACTED], Esq.
+[REDACTED] Law Firm, P.A.
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561-832-7732
+561-832-7137 F
+[isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net](mailto:isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.
+08-80469*
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit@bc1claw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mpikeabelclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749052/EFTA02749052.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749052/EFTA02749052.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d7945d6ca8e1abc900e054bbc128ad678e101af
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749052/EFTA02749052.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,793 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749052.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 15,
+ "chars": 26981,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 8.78,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 78.57000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.03143310546875,
+ 78.57000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.03143310546875,
+ 105.30000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 105.30000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Defendant's Response In Opposition to Jane Doe 2-8s' Rule 4 Appeal (DE 493), \nWith Incorporated Memorandum Of Law",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 324.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.710205078125,
+ 324.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 514.710205078125,
+ 355.09478759765625
+ ],
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 355.09478759765625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "I. Procedural Background",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 228.276,
+ 451.1700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 393.07513427734375,
+ 451.1700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 393.07513427734375,
+ 464.40997314453125
+ ],
+ [
+ 228.276,
+ 464.40997314453125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "a. Argument",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 262.548,
+ 300.51
+ ],
+ [
+ 354.96,
+ 300.51
+ ],
+ [
+ 354.96,
+ 314.80035400390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 262.548,
+ 314.80035400390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(i) The Fifth Amendment and Plaintiffs' Rule 4 Appeal",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 181.152,
+ 190.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 469.6681213378906,
+ 190.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 469.6681213378906,
+ 207.59857177734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 181.152,
+ 207.59857177734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "The Request for Production",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 238.68,
+ 577.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 386.1267395019531,
+ 577.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 386.1267395019531,
+ 593.4148559570312
+ ],
+ [
+ 238.68,
+ 593.4148559570312
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "The Interrogatories",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 257.652,
+ 357.21000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 364.1580810546875,
+ 357.21000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 364.1580810546875,
+ 372.1206359863281
+ ],
+ [
+ 257.652,
+ 372.1206359863281
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "II. Conclusion",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 260.712,
+ 468.18
+ ],
+ [
+ 359.0294494628906,
+ 468.18
+ ],
+ [
+ 359.0294494628906,
+ 482.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 260.712,
+ 482.76
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 605.0699999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 368.4291076660156,
+ 605.0699999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 368.4291076660156,
+ 618.03
+ ],
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 618.03
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Service List Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/[REDACTED]",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 190.332,
+ 94.77000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 420.4440000000001,
+ 94.77000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 420.4440000000001,
+ 136.07999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 190.332,
+ 136.07999999999998
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 231
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 363
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 417
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 400
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 442
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 365
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 362
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 366
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 378
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 360
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 345
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 333
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 281
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749052"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749067/EFTA02749067.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749067/EFTA02749067.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2ceb884eae490dfbc1c9571734d1f229b5270659
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749067/EFTA02749067.md
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-Civ-80119-MARRA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+/
+
+## ORDER GRANTING JANE DOE NO. 103'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF JANE. DOE'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
+
+THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Jane Doe No. 103's Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff Jane Doe's Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment, and, upon the Court's review of the record, and being duly advised in the premises, it is
+
+ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Jane Doe No. 103's Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amid Curiae in Support of Plaintiff Jane Doe's Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED. Jane Doe No. 103's brief shall be due on , 2010.
+
+DONE and ORDERED in at Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, this day of , 2010.
+
+> JUDGE KENNETH A. MARRA DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749067/EFTA02749067.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749067/EFTA02749067.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..291816cc320748ffa61ba5ffafd870dc1d36c505
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749067/EFTA02749067.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749067.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1151,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.75,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 96.38999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 401.77642822265625,
+ 96.38999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 401.77642822265625,
+ 140.103515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 140.103515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER GRANTING JANE DOE NO. 103'S MOTION \nFOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF \nPLAINTIFF JANE. DOE'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S \nMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 109.548,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 497.70941162109375,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 497.70941162109375,
+ 154.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 109.548,
+ 154.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749067"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749069/EFTA02749069.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749069/EFTA02749069.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0db4f946d164459a7813becb36877147ccd2c72
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749069/EFTA02749069.md
@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-Civ-80119-MAR
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+Jane Doe No. 103's Motion for Leave to File Brief
+
+#### as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff Jane Doe's Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment and Certification of Having Conferred Pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1.A.3
+
+Jane Doe No. 103, Plaintiff in Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 10- 80309, individually and in her representative capacity for all those similarly situated, and by and through her undersigned counsel, respectfully files this Motion requesting that this Court confer amicus curiae status on Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 and permit undersigned counsel to file an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Plaintiff Jane Doe's Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment and Certification of Having Conferred Pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1.A.3 [D.E. No.128]. In light of the consolidation of the related cases listed under the caption above, and considering the similar, if not identical, material facts and law in these cases and the instant one, Jane Doe No. 103 most likely will ultimately be bound by the Court's decision on the motion for summary judgment in Jane Doe's case.(11 As such, Jane Doe No. 103 definitely has an interest in the determination of the issues at hand and should be afforded an opportunity to be heard on these issues.
+
+In his motion, Defendant raises the issue of which version of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 applies, i.e., the version in effect at the time that Defendant committed the wrongs, or the amended version, which became effective in July 2006 and thus was in effect at the time that the Jane Does—including, but not limited to, Jane Doe and Jane Doe No. 103-filed
+
+ln Plaintiff is filing a motion to trap f r n nsolidate this action, Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV-80119-MARK , with the other related cases that have already been consolidated for the purposes of Iscovery and procedural motions that relate to multiple cases pursuant to the Court's Order da 14 2009 (D.E. 98] and filed under the consolidated Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARR
+
+their claims. The Court's ruling on this issue also will likely resolve other related matters that are critical to all of the Jane Does, e.g., whether, under the earlier version of the Act, victims who were minors at the time, but no longer minors, were allowed to bring suit; whether the minimum compensation to victims on the part of the defendant was per incident, or per count; and which conduct constituted a violation. These issues and subissues have been lurking ominously since the inception of these cases. Their resolution should enhance the settlement process
+
+Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for the filing of amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs at the district level, district courts have inherent authority to allow the filing of such briefs if they will assist in the proceedings. See In re Bayshore Trucks Sales, Inc. v. Motor Co., 471 F.3d 1233, 1249 n.34 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Lathrop v. Unidentified, Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, 817 F. Supp. 953, 960 n.10 (M.D. Fla. 1993); Resort Timeshare Resales, Inc. v. Stuart, 764 F. Supp. 1495, 1500-01 (S.D. Fla. 1991). Ample authority and numerous instances exist in which courts have allowed parties who do not necessarily meet the criteria for intervention to appear as amici before the court and submit briefs and argument as necessary. See, e.g., Hopwood v. Texas, 21 F.3d 603, 605-06 (5th Cir. 1994) (black student organizations invited to appear as amid in case by applicants challenging law school admissions policy at state law school as discriminatory); British Airways Bd. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 71 F.R.D. 583, 585 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (denying motion to intervene, but allowing party to participate as amicus curiae in the case), aff'd, 556 F.2d 554 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. Mass. Mar. Acad., 76 F.R.D. 595, 598 (D. Mass. 1977) (same). Amicus status is particularly warranted where, as here, the putative
+
+amid will bring perspectives and analyses that will be of use to the court in making its determinations. Mausolf v. Babbitt, 158 F.R.D. 143, 148 (D. Minn. 1994) (environmental group conferred amicus status where the participation of the group "may assist the Court in its resolution of the issues raised by the parties in this case"), rev'd on other grounds, 85 F.3d 1295 (8th Cir. 1996). An amicus participates only for the benefit of the court; thus the court has the discretion to determine the "'fact, extent, and manner of participation by the amicus."' Resort Timeshare Resales, Inc., 764 F. Supp. at 1501 (citing News & Sun-Sentinel Co. v. Cox, 700 F. Supp. 30, 31 (S.D. Fla. 1988)).
+
+Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103's brief will assist the Court in arriving at an accurate, well-reasoned, and consistent resolution of issues of critical concern and import to each of the victim plaintiffs who have filed or will file claims against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. Counsel for Jane Doe No. 103 have been unable to agree with Defendant and his counsel on the issues outlined above. Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103's proposed amicus brief would oppose Defendant's interpretation of his rights with regard to sexual exploitation and other abuse of children pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Being mindful of the interests of Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 in these issues, and understanding that, "[w]here [s]he presents no new questions, a third party can contribute usually most effectively and always most expeditiously by a brief amicus curiae," Bush v. Viterna, 740 F.2d 350, 359 (5th Cir. 1984) (amicus curiae status confirmed), the Court should therefore confer amicus curiae status on Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 with respect to the determination as to which version of § 2255 applies. This will involve consideration of retroactivity, legal disability, the effect on damages of Defendant's multiple violations of a victim, and Defendant's a post facto argument. These issues critically affect not only
+
+Jane Doe's recovery, but also that of Jane Doe No. 103 and all of the other Jane Doe victims of Defendant.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 respectfully moves this Court for the entry of an order permitting her to appear as amicus curiae in support of Plaintiff Jane Doe's position.
+
+s/Katherine W. Ezell
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Bar No. 40856
+
+Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771
+
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+
+Miami, Florida 33130
+
+(305) 358-2800
+
+(305) 358-2382 (fax)
+
+rjosefsbergapodhurst.com
+
+kezellapodhurst.com
+
+Attorneys for Piaintiflane Doe No. 103
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3
+
+Undersigned counsel conferred on April 1, 2010 with Defendant's counsel Robert Critton, Esq., who advised that Defendant is unable to agree to this Motion.
+
+Date: April 2010.
+
+a/Katherine W. Ezell
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Bar No. 40856
+
+Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771
+
+Podhurst Orscck, P.A.
+
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+
+Miami, Florida 33130
+
+(305) 358-2800
+
+(305) 358-2382 (fax)
+
+rjosefsbergepodhurst.com
+
+kezell(Wpodhurst.com
+
+Attorneys for Plaint:-Vane Doe No. 103
+
+### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this day of April, 2010, we electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to electronically receive Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
+
+Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103
+
+By: s/Katherine W. Ezell
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg
+
+Fla. Bar No. 040856
+
+rjosefsbergapodhurst.com Katherine W. Ezell
+
+Fla. Bar No. 114771
+
+kezellapodhurst.com City National Bank Building
+
+25 W. Flagler Street, Ste. 800
+
+Miami, FL 33130
+
+Telephone: (305) 358-2800
+
+Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
+
+## SERVICE LIST
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA.,
+
+United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Robert Critton, Esq.
+
+Michael J. Pike, Esq. Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP
+
+303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+Phone: (561) 842-2820/Fax: (561) 515-3148
+
+rcritObcIclaw.com
+
+mpikeabc1claw.com
+
+Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Jack Goldberger, Esq.
+
+Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+
+250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 334O1
+
+Phone: (561) 659-8300/Fax: (561) 835-8691
+
+jagesq(@bellsouth.net
+
+Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq.
+
+Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A.
+
+250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+Phone: (561) 202-6360/Fax: (561) 828-0983
+
+ecfPbrucereinhartlaw.com
+
+Counsel for Co-Defendant,
+
+Jack Scarola, Esq.
+
+Jack P.M, Esq.
+
+Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
+
+2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
+
+West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
+
+Phone: (561) 686-6300/Fax: (561) 383-9456
+
+jsxasearcvlaw.com
+
+jplasearcylaw.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in related Case No. 08-80811
+
+Adam Horowitz, Esq.
+
+Stuart Mermelstein, Esq.
+
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+
+18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
+
+Miami, FL 33160
+
+Phone: (305) 931-2200/Fax: (305) 931-0877
+
+ahorowitzasexabuseatiorney.com
+
+smermelsteinasexabuseattomey.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08- 80381, 08-80993, 08-80994
+
+Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq.
+
+Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq.
+
+Leopold Kuvin, P.A.
+
+2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
+
+Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
+
+Phone: (561) 515-1400/Fax: (561) 515-1401
+
+skuvinOleopoldkuvin.com
+
+tleopoldOleopoldkuvin.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804
+
+Brad Esq.
+
+Civil Justice Attorney
+
+, Jaffe, Weissing, , Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
+
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+
+Phone: (954) 524-2820/Fax: (954) 524-2822
+
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893
+
+Isidro Manuel , Esq.
+
+Elkins & Boehringer
+
+224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+Phone: (561) 832-8033/Fax: (561) 832-7137
+
+isidrogarcia(rbbellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749069/EFTA02749069.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749069/EFTA02749069.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..77be61be71eee65746901c8a7f4be46f7646e3e5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749069/EFTA02749069.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,572 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749069.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 12,
+ "chars": 10551,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.97,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 68.85000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.93707275390625,
+ 68.85000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.93707275390625,
+ 112.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 112.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff Jane Doe's Opposition to Defendant \nEpstein's Motion for Summary Judgment and Certification of Having Conferred \nPursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1.A.3",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 91.8,
+ 68.85000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.6673583984375,
+ 68.85000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.6673583984375,
+ 111.2335205078125
+ ],
+ [
+ 91.8,
+ 111.2335205078125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 115.05599999999998,
+ 593.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 469.6547546386719,
+ 593.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 469.6547546386719,
+ 610.4830169677734
+ ],
+ [
+ 115.05599999999998,
+ 610.4830169677734
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 219.70799999999997,
+ 68.85000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 383.724,
+ 68.85000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 383.724,
+ 83.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 219.70799999999997,
+ 83.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 257.652,
+ 69.66
+ ],
+ [
+ 348.0882873535156,
+ 69.66
+ ],
+ [
+ 348.0882873535156,
+ 85.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 257.652,
+ 85.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 41
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 43
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 43
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749069"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749081/EFTA02749081.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749081/EFTA02749081.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b4ec9cb5e08000800bd7243cb6ffe69717322f2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749081/EFTA02749081.md
@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRia
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+Vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+### PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSE TO EPSTEIN'S UNTIMELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF FIFTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENTS
+
+Plaintiff, Jane Doe, respectfully files this response to defendant Jeffrey Epstein's untimely Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versions of Sensitive Fifth Amendment Arguments and Submit Un-Redacted Arguments to the Court (dkt. #518). While the motion is not completely clear, Epstein seems to be arguing that he can file these arguments with regard to his appeal of the magistrate judge's ruling in favor of Jane Doe on various discovery issues (dkt. #462). This particular appeal, however, is already fully briefed — as the appeal/request for Rule 4 review (dkt. #477), Jane Doe's response (dkt. #485), and Epstein's reply (dkt. #502) were all filed well before Epstein's motion to submit new redacted arguments. Epstein's motion does not contend that any of these issues are newly discovered or otherwise arose recently. Therefore, at least with
+
+respect to his effort to appeal the order in favor of Jane Doe, his motion is simply and obviously untimely.
+
+# PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
+
+On July 20, 2009, Jane Doe filed a straightforward motion for production of various materials, including documents provided to Epstein from state and federal prosecutors in the criminal cases against him, his recent tax returns, and his passport (dkt. #210). Consistent with his discovery history, Epstein obtained an extension of time in which to respond and, two-and-a-half months later, on October 6, 2009, Epstein filed an objection to producing these items primarily on Fifth Amendment grounds (dkt. #339). On October 16, 2009, Jane Doe filed a reply in support of her motion (dkt. #354). On January 22, 2010, Jane Doe filed a notice that more than 90 days had elapsed since the filing of her motion (dkt. #453).
+
+On February 4, 2010, the magistrate judge granted in part Jane Doe's motion to compel, specifically ruling that Epstein had to produce the documents provided to him by state and federal prosecutors, his recent tax returns, and his passport (dkt. #462).
+
+Epstein then obtained another extension of time in which to file an appeal,' ultimately filing an appeal of the magistrate decision on February 26, 2010 - some seven months after Jane Doe's initial request had been made (dkt. #477). Jane Doe
+
+On February 9, 2010, Epstein moved for an extension of time to file his appeal (dkt. #464). On the same day, Jane Doe objected to any extension, explaining the length of time involved in resolving the issue and the prejudice it was having to her ability to gather evidence in support of her claims and urging an expeditious resolution of the matter (dkt. #465). Two days later, the Court agreed with some of Jane Doe's arguments, requiring that Epstein collect all the materials that are subject to this discovery dispute and be prepared to produce them within three days of any order affirming the magistrate judge (dkt. #468).
+
+promptly filed her response on March 10, 2010 (dkt. #485). Epstein then moved for (dkt. #495) and obtained (dkt. #500) additional time to file his reply, which he filed on March 26, 2010 (dkt. #502).
+
+Ten days after the appeal was fully briefed by both sides, on April 6, 2010, Epstein moved 'for leave to file redacted versions of sensitive Fifth Amendment arguments and submit original, un-redacted arguments to the Court for in-camera inspection." Dkt. #518 at p. 1. He listed three magistrate judge orders that these arguments were to bear on, including dkt. #462 -- the February 4, 2010, order in Jane Doe's favor that was the subject of the fully-briefed appeal. Dkt. #518 at p. 1. The next day, April 7, 2010, the Court ordered the plaintiffs to file any objection to the motion promptly, no later than April 12, 2010 (dkt. #520).
+
+### ARGUMENT
+
+It appears that Epstein is contending that he should now be able to file new redacted arguments on issues relating to his appeal of the magistrate judge's order in favor of Jane Doe (as well as with regard to other plaintiffs). At least with regard to Jane Doe, his motion should simply be denied as being untimely. The appeal of the Jane Doe order became fully briefed when Epstein filed his reply on March 26, 2010. There is no reason for Epstein to file new, redacted arguments after his reply brief has been filed. Moreover, Jane Doe would be prejudiced were the Court to receive and consider new arguments that she will have no opportunity to respond to. Finally, the Court should be aware that this untimely motion appears to be part of a calculated effort by Epstein and his extensive legal team to simply "run out the clock" and block Jane
+
+Doe from gaining relevant evidence to prove her case. Accordingly, with regard to Jane Doe and the appeal of the magistrate judge's order in her favor (dkt. #462), Epstein's motion should be promptly denied so that she can receive the materials she properly sought more than eight months ago.
+
+# CONCLUSION
+
+Epstein's Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versions of Sensitive Fifth Amendment Arguments and to Submit Un-Redacted Arguments to the Court (dkt. #518) should be denied with regard to Epstein's appeal of the order in Jane Doe's favor (dkt. #462). Jane Doe understands that other plaintiffs are also objecting to the motion. To the extent that those objections apply to Jane Doe's case, Jane Doe fully joins in those objections.
+
+DATED: April 12, 2010
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+AFFE, WEISSING, , FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+and
+
+Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 12, 2010 I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+> s/ J. J.
+
+## SERVICE LIST
+
+Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Jaoldberaer@aawoa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bciclaw.com
+
+Isidro Manual isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack iph@searcvlaw.com •
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike
+
+MPike@bciclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell
+
+cassello@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits
+
+lawyerswillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg
+
+riosefsberoPuodhurst.com
+
+Adam D. Horowitz
+
+ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein
+
+ssm@sexabuseattorney.com
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749081/EFTA02749081.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749081/EFTA02749081.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aff3531d27f057b748538edd1857b45065509f80
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749081/EFTA02749081.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,414 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749081.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 6,
+ "chars": 7216,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.15,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 71.0675048828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.520751953125,
+ 71.0675048828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.520751953125,
+ 99.54998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 99.54998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSE TO EPSTEIN'S UNTIMELY MOTION FOR \nLEAVE TO FILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF FIFTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENTS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 80.784,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.6539916992188,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.6539916992188,
+ 416.79998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 80.784,
+ 416.79998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 215.42399999999998,
+ 164.43
+ ],
+ [
+ 397.52557373046875,
+ 164.43
+ ],
+ [
+ 397.52557373046875,
+ 180.17999267578125
+ ],
+ [
+ 215.42399999999998,
+ 180.17999267578125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ARGUMENT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 269.892,
+ 413.8074951171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.1871643066406,
+ 413.8074951171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.1871643066406,
+ 428.41998291015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 269.892,
+ 428.41998291015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CONCLUSION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 263.772,
+ 219.51
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.7690734863281,
+ 219.51
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.7690734863281,
+ 235.29998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 263.772,
+ 235.29998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 225.216,
+ 247.86
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.3754577636719,
+ 247.86
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.3754577636719,
+ 263.04998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 225.216,
+ 263.04998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 440.6400000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.1988220214844,
+ 440.6400000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.1988220214844,
+ 456.17999267578125
+ ],
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 456.17999267578125
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749081"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749087/EFTA02749087.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749087/EFTA02749087.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c76c719d2073588c72efffdd8d8b3a4f2cda3e16
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749087/EFTA02749087.md
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+/
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
+
+/
+
+#### PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES NOS. 2-8' MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF SENSITIVE FIFTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENTS AND SUBMIT UNREDACTED ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT (DE 518)
+
+Plaintiffs Jane Does Nos. 2-8, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file this Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versions of Sensitive Fifth Amendment Arguments and Submit Unredacted Arguments to the Court (DE 518), and state as follows:
+
+#### Introduction
+
+Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant" or "Epstein") seeks to make additional in camera submissions in support of his appeal of Orders of the Magistrate Judge. Epstein has already made in camera submissions in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Net Worth Discovery, which were reviewed and considered by the Magistrate Judge in making her rulings.
+
+(See, e.g., Order dated March 4, 2010 (DE 480), p. 6). Defendant now seeks to make new submissions in camera for purposes of this Local Mag. R. 4 appeal. Defendant's Motion should be denied, first, because he had ample opportunity to make in camera submissions and create a record while the matter was before the Magistrate Judge.' Additional in camera submissions should not be allowed on appeal. Second, it appears that Defendant is seeking permission to redact legal arguments in his memoranda to be filed on appeal. Plaintiffs are unfairly prejudiced by the filing of memoranda with legal arguments redacted. It is difficult, if not impossible, for Plaintiffs to respond to such arguments, and it is not necessary for purposes of protecting Defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege that Defendant be allowed to file redacted legal memoranda.2
+
+# Factual Submissions on Appeal Should Not be Allowed
+
+This Court has discretion to reject newly offered evidence in an appeal of a magistrate judge's decision. Site United States v. Howell 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000) (reviewing cases on this issue decided under 28 U.S.C. §636). Defendant had the right to make in camera submissions on the underlying Motion, and he exercised that right. He was given every opportunity to substantiate his claims of privilege before the Magistrate Judge. See U.S. v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349 (11th Cir. 1991) (discussing in camera procedure for determining application of privilege). Indeed, his claims of privilege were upheld by the Magistrate Judge as
+
+ x27; Nothing in Defendant's Motion indicates that he seeks to submit in camera evidence that is newly discovered subsequent to the Magistrate's Orders.
+
+Indeed, Defendant's Memorandum in response to Plaintiff's Rule 4 appeal of the same Magistrate Judge's Order (DE 522) contains no redactions. That Memorandum refers to Defendant's in camera submissions provided to the Magistrate Judge, and generally to the "target offenses" outlined in those submissions. Certainly, if Defendant was capable of making his legal arguments without redactions in that filing, them is no reason why he should have to file redacted legal memoranda in his own appeal of the same Magistrate Judge's Order.
+
+to the great majority of the documents requested. Under these circumstances, there are no considerations of fairness or the Fifth Amendment that would make it necessary or appropriate for Defendant to file anything further in camera.
+
+# Defendant Should Not Be Authorized to Redact His Levi Memoranda on Appeal
+
+The Orders issued by the Magistrate Judge refer generally to the Defendant's in camera submissions, without discussing their contents. Nothing in the Magistrate's Order is redacted or hidden from Plaintiffs and the public record. Nonetheless, Defendant seeks to make in camera arguments on appeal in response to these Orders, to which Plaintiffs cannot fairly respond. It can be expected that, if authorized, Defendant will file memoranda of record that are laden with thick black lines at all relevant points. At this time, on appeal, it is unnecessary and unfairly prejudicial for Defendant to make his arguments in this manner. The in camera submissions and the memoranda filed of record should be separate and distinct. Defendant has already made his in camera submissions. As the Magistrate Judge did in her Orders, the legal arguments on appeal can be made in such a manner that does not require redaction,; to which Plaintiffs can then reasonably formulate a response. Defendant Epstein cites to no authority that would authorize him to make new in camera submissions on appeal. The cases relied upon by Defendant in his initial Memorandum apply only to in camera inspection of the documents the movant seeks to protect in discovery, and not the arguments made to protect those documents. See United States v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 1504 (M.D. Fla. 1989); In re Duque, 134 B.R. 679 (S.D. Fla. 1991).
+
+Defendant has also filed a "Notice of Supplemental Authority" presenting two additional cases, only one of which merits discussion. In Methodist Hospitals. Inc. v. la, 91 F.3d
+
+See footnote 2 above.
+
+1026, 1031-32 (7th Cir. 1996), the Court instructed a party to redact from its legal memorandum the personal income figures of five physicians, in lieu of filing the entire document under seal. The Court found that the inclusion of this income information in the memorandum was "gratuitous." 91 F.3d at 1031. In contrast, Defendant Epstein undoubtedly intends to redact wholesale portions of his Memorandum containing the critical portions of his legal arguments. Methodist Hospital is not authority for such an unfairly prejudicial submission.
+
+# Conclusion
+
+Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendant's Motion to File Redacted Versions of Papers in Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Orders be denied, and such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) ssm@sexabuseattorney.com Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com Jessica D. Arbour (FL Bar No. 67885) jarbour@sexabuseattorney.com MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877
+
+# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I hereby certify that on April 12, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+/s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein
+
+### SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. igoldberger@agwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bciclaw.com
+
+James brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+Isidro Manuel isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack jph@searcylaw.com U
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike MPike@bciclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawyerwillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749087/EFTA02749087.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749087/EFTA02749087.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..398135d251329dd722d598df47206a389ebd50f0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749087/EFTA02749087.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,445 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749087.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 6,
+ "chars": 7582,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.11,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES NOS. 2-8' MEMORANDUM \nIN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR \nLEAVE TO FILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF SENSITIVE \nFIFTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENTS AND SUBMIT \nUNREDACTED ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT (DE 518)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 146.268,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 466.1435241699219,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 466.1435241699219,
+ 458.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 146.268,
+ 458.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Introduction",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 270.504,
+ 582.39
+ ],
+ [
+ 341.68609619140625,
+ 582.39
+ ],
+ [
+ 341.68609619140625,
+ 596.2330169677734
+ ],
+ [
+ 270.504,
+ 596.2330169677734
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Factual Submissions on Appeal Should Not be Allowed",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 162.792,
+ 345.87
+ ],
+ [
+ 448.99505615234375,
+ 345.87
+ ],
+ [
+ 448.99505615234375,
+ 362.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 162.792,
+ 362.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Defendant Should Not Be Authorized to \nRedact His Levi Memoranda on Appeal",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 153.09
+ ],
+ [
+ 413.6121520996094,
+ 153.09
+ ],
+ [
+ 413.6121520996094,
+ 182.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 182.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Conclusion",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 274.176,
+ 236.51999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 337.3619384765625,
+ 236.51999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 337.3619384765625,
+ 251.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 274.176,
+ 251.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 227.052,
+ 84.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 84.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 98.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 227.052,
+ 98.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST \nDOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN \nUnited States District Court, Southern District of Florida",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 157.28400000000002,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 454.7248229980469,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 454.7248229980469,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 157.28400000000002,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749087"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749093/EFTA02749093.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749093/EFTA02749093.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..62b7cf147d182a6f9e26b7efbbb4618cf40b3566
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749093/EFTA02749093.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
+
+## AFFIDAVIT OF JESSICA ARBOUR
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS: COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE
+
+Jessica Arbour deposes and states as follows:
+
+- 1. My name is Jessica Arbour. I am an attorney at Merrnelstein & Horowitz, P.A., the law firm representing Jane Doe Nos. 2-7.
+- 2. On or about March 12, 2010, I spoke with FBI Paralegal Specialist Deborah Moore at the FBI's North Miami Beach office. I informed her that I wanted to get copies of the sworn statements our clients gave to FBI investigators during the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, and that I needed instructions from her as to the proper procedure.
+- 3. Ms. Moore informed me that it was a three-step process: First, I should serve the FBI with a subpoena listing the specific statements I wanted. Second, I should provide them
+
+
+
+with a "compliance letter" that stated the reasons I was requesting the information in order to comply with the Privacy Act. Third, I would need to provide either a signed, notarized authorization from each of my clients waiving their rights under the Privacy Act or an Order from this Court ordering the FBI to comply with the subpoena.
+
+4. On March 12, 2010, Plaintiffs served a subpoena duces tecum, attached to the original Motion as Exhibit 1, for our clients' statements.
+
+5. On March 16, 2010, I received a letter from FBI General Counsel [REDACTED] Navas confirming that the FBI had received my subpoena and that they would await an Order from this Court or the signed authorizations from each of the Plaintiffs before producing the requested documents. I had previously informed him that I would seek an Order from this Court.
+
+6. Given that discovery deadlines are approaching, a Motion was filed with this Court seeking a single Court Order applicable to all of the statements because Plaintiff's counsel believes that is the most efficient and timely means of obtaining the Plaintiffs' statements.
+
+FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
+
+Dated: April 12, 2010
+
+![]()BEFORE ME, personally appeared Jessica D. Arbour who after being first duly sworn, deposes and states that he has executed the foregoing Affidavit, and that it is correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
+
+THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT was sworn to and subscribed before me this 12 day of April, 2010.
+
+![]()![]()
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749093/EFTA02749093.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749093/EFTA02749093.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4590377a0f5a885cc7b9ab1feba05789b6f76a71
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749093/EFTA02749093.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749093.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 2591,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 6.03,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.8418273925781,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.8418273925781,
+ 126.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 126.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "AFFIDAVIT OF JESSICA ARBOUR",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 388.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.5380859375,
+ 388.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.5380859375,
+ 403.863037109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 403.863037109375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 73
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749093"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749093/_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749093/_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..02f92149344035710f742d4f7bc90a6ababe1e94
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749093/_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:4b8f82ab8f07c7cb273becbbb270a1a3474ca50fe068ee45cdf4e495dbd512d0
+size 7457
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749095/EFTA02749095.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749095/EFTA02749095.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..573de72194e8a05ce33c0f0442b14e175025b563
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749095/EFTA02749095.md
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+
+
+## U.S. Department of Justice
+
+## Federal Bureau of Investigation
+
+in act\*. Pfau Refer to Pile No.
+
+Jessica D. Arbour, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, PA 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160
+
+Re: Jane Doe 2-7 v. Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Dear Ms. Arbour:
+
+16320 N.W. 2nd Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33169 March 16, 2010
+
+Sent Via Facsimile se 114 Maw'
+
+We are in receipt of your subpoena and letter dated March 12, 2010. Please be advised that the FBI response to this request is governed by the provisions of Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 16.21 et seq. and the Privacy Act (Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a). These regulations specify that no employee of the Department of Justice, past or present, shall in response to ademand, produce or disclose information unless there is compliance with the applicable provisions. The procedure is mandatory and governs state and federal proceedings and has been upheld in the United States Supreme Court. Sec U.S. ex rel, Touhv v. Bake% 340 U.S. 462 (1951).
+
+In addition, the Privacy Act (Title 5, U.S.C., Section 552a(b), prohibits the release of agency records pertaining to an individual, or information from those records, for a non-law enforcement purpose. The FBI may not disclose this information without the notarized written consent of cacti record subject, or an order from acourt of competent jurisdiction authorizing its disclosure by the FBI. In the absence of either the notarized consent of the record subject, or an appropriate court order authorizing disclosure, we are statutorily prohibited from releasing any information to you.
+
+As you noted in your letter you will seek a court order allowing for the release of the records requested, Once the Privacy Act Order is issued, please provide a copy of the order along wilier complying with the Code of Federal Regulations directed to Chief Division Counsel Navas at the above address. In accordance with the above cited law and regulations, we must receive the notarized consent or Privacy Act Order before any documents may be released to you.
+
+
+
+Should you require further assistance, please contact Paralegal Specialist Deyanira Aponte at (305) 787-6727.
+
+Very Truly Yours,
+
+JOHN V. GP IRS Speci t in Charge
+
+NAVAS 'vision Counsel FD-448
+
+Revised 10-27-2064
+
+## FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
+
+| PRECEDENCE | |
+|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
+| Immediate | Priority |
+| CLASSIFICATION | |
+| Top Secret | Secret |
+| | Confidential |
+| | Sensitive |
+| | Unclassified |
+| TO | |
+| Name of Office:Mermelstein & Horowitz PA | |
+| Attn:Jessica D. Arbour, Esq. | |
+| FROM | |
+| Name of Office:FBI Miami, Chief Division Counsel | |
+| Originator's Name:PLS Deyanira Aponte | |
+| Approved:FN | |
+| Originator's Telephone Number:(305) 787-6727 | |
+| Number of Pages: (including cover)3 | |
+| Originator's Facsimile Number:(305) 787-6124 | |
+| DETAILS | |
+| Subject:Jane Does 2-7 v. Jeffrey Epstein | |
+
+Special Handling Instructions:
+
+Please review and provide CFR compliance letter & Privacy Act Order to Chief Division Counsel Navas.
+
+enef Description of Communication Faxed:
+
+WARNING Information attached to the cover sheet is U.S. Government Property. If you are not the intended recipient of this Information disclosure, reproduction, distribution, or use of this Information is prohibited (1S.OSC, § 641). Please notify the originator or local FBI Office immediately to arrange for proper disposition,
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749095/EFTA02749095.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749095/EFTA02749095.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2d5f71487a8d8eb3b2119bdb56687c5df877e66
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749095/EFTA02749095.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,215 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749095.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 5297,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 3.25,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "U.S. Department of Justice",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 328.03200000000004,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.1164245605469,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.1164245605469,
+ 99.63
+ ],
+ [
+ 328.03200000000004,
+ 99.63
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Federal Bureau of Investigation",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 326.196,
+ 116.63999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 467.1591491699219,
+ 116.63999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 467.1591491699219,
+ 133.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 326.196,
+ 133.65
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION \nFACSIMILE COVER SHEET",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 61.56
+ ],
+ [
+ 453.2413330078125,
+ 61.56
+ ],
+ [
+ 453.2413330078125,
+ 95.58
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 95.58
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 402
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 227
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 41
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749095"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749095/_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749095/_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0850b20495ef21f0c018f5d20e7661742c45c7b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749095/_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:4d8e6a835c922a26d218b9c221adf553cdc836d7de73aa5f1eb04f5b3bfa26e9
+size 7395
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749095/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749095/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b8d1c2a02a6b3eb562faf09d070c55d0f9907e1f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749095/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:78100a31b4856b0ef3b212024dd49570ba3fdf0c3c71502aadf872ce535bd1da
+size 3594
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749098/EFTA02749098.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749098/EFTA02749098.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3dad70e8e1ee50ba584eec97ce7a05d303756999
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749098/EFTA02749098.md
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
+
+## PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-7'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS' SWORN STATEMENTS TO FBI INVESTIGATORS
+
+Plaintiffs, Jane Does Nos. 2-7, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file this Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiffs' Sworn Statements to FBI Investigators (DE 489), and state as follows:
+
+I. Plaintiffs seek an Order from this Court compelling the FBI to comply with a subpoena duces tecum for their sworn statements given to FBI investigators during the FBI's investigation of Defendant Epstein. The FBI, which has received notice of this Motion, filed no opposition, but instead instructed Plaintiffs' undersigned counsel that such an Order is necessary to comply with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a). Nevertheless, Defendant Epstein objects on the basis that the subpoena does not comply with internal operating procedures of the FBI and Department of Justice set forth in federal regulations.
+
+2. Initially, Defendant Epstein has no standing to raise objections to a subpoena directed to nonparty FBI. "A party has standing to object to a subpoena directed at a nonparty when the party claims a 'personal right or privilege' regarding the documents sought." Chaikin v. Fidelity and Guaranty Life Ins. Co., 2003 WL 22715826 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (emphasis supplied). Defendant Epstein does not claim any personal right or privilege regarding the documents sought, nor could he.
+
+3. In any event, on March 12, 2010, Plaintiff's undersigned counsel conferred with an FBI representative who instructed her as to the proper procedure for obtaining the Plaintiffs' statements. See Affidavit of Jessica Arbour, Esq., attached as Exhibit "1." In accordance with those instructions, Plaintiffs' counsel served a subpoena on the Records Custodian of the FBI that same day.
+
+4. Plaintiff's counsel received a letter from the General Counsel of the FBI confirming receipt of the subpoena and that the FBI would produce the requested information when either a signed authorization from each Plaintiff was received or an Order of this Court was received. That letter is attached as Exhibit "2."
+
+5. In accordance with the FBI's verbal and written instructions, Plaintiffs moved this Court for an Order to comply with the Privacy Act on March 17, 2010.
+
+6. Plaintiffs have a right to the sworn statements they gave to the FBI investigators, and Defendant Epstein only seeks to delay them from receiving the statements, all of which are relevant and material to these cases.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-7 respectfully request that this Court grant Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Jane Doe Nos. 2-7's Sworn Statements to FBI Investigators (DE 489).
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Jessica D. Arbour Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) ssm@sexabuseattoniey.com Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@sexabuseattoniev.com Jessica D. Arbour (FL Bar No. 67885) jarbour@sexabuseattorney.com MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I hereby certify that on April 12, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+/s/ Jessica D. Arbour
+
+## SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. igoldberger@agwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bciclaw.com
+
+James brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+Isidro Manuel isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack jph@searcylaw.com U
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike MPike@bciclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawyerwillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
+
+By facsimile and U.S. Mail to:
+
+Navas, Esq. Chief Division Counsel Federal Bureau of Investigations 16320 N.W. 2nd Avenue North Miami Beach, FL 33169
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749098/EFTA02749098.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749098/EFTA02749098.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f042588792ed75974583237db5f29782d4bc6884
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749098/EFTA02749098.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749098.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 5,
+ "chars": 4622,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.98,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-7'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF \nPLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF \nPLAINTIFFS' SWORN STATEMENTS TO FBI INVESTIGATORS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 125.46000000000001,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 487.01580810546875,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 487.01580810546875,
+ 430.863037109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 125.46000000000001,
+ 430.863037109375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 227.052,
+ 84.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 84.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 98.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 227.052,
+ 98.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST \nDOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN \nUnited States District Court, Southern District of Florida",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 156.67200000000003,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 156.67200000000003,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 66
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749098"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749103/EFTA02749103.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749103/EFTA02749103.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a97700342693a6e296edc3dfe58b38f7c5c9003c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749103/EFTA02749103.md
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-Civ-80119-MARRa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff, vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 0840993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## NOTICE TO STRIKE (DE 523)
+
+Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 103, by and through her undersigned attorneys, hereby files her Notice to Strike:
+
+- 1. On April 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed Jane Doe No. 103's Motion for Leave to file Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff Jane Doe's Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment and Certification of Having Conferred Pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1.A.3 (DE 523).
+ - 2. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 103's Motion was filed under the wrong case number.
+- 3. Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 103 will re-file her Motion in the correct case number (Case No. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA,).
+
+Dated this 15i6 day of April, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
+
+Attorneys for Plaintiff.lane Doe No. 103
+
+By: s/Katherine W. Ezell Robert C. Josefsberg Fla. Bar No. 040856 riosefsberg@podhurst.com Katherine W. Ezell Fla. Bar No. 114771 lcezellQuodhurst.com City National Bank Building 25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 15Th day of April, 2010, we electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. Attorneys for Plainti, jfJane Doe No. 103
+
+By: s/Katherine W. Ezell Robert C. Josefsberg Fla. Bar No. 040856 riosefsbergepodhurst.coM Katherine W. Ezell Fla. Bar No. 114771 Jcezell@podhurst.com City National Bank Building 25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
+
+## SERVICE LIST
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRa United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Robert Critton, Esq. Michael J. Pike, Esq. Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 842-2820/Fax: (561) 515-3148 rcrit@bcIclaw.com inpike@bc1claw.com Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 659-8300/Fax: (561) 835-8691 jakeso@bellsouth.net Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 202-6360/Fax: (561) 828-0983 ccf@brucercinhartlaw.com Counsel for Co-Defendant.
+
+Adam Horowitz, Esq. Stuart Mennelstein, Esq. Mennelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: (305) 931-2200/Fax: (305) 931-0877 ahorowitz@sexabuseattornev.com smermelstein@sexabuseattomey.com Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 0840069, 0840119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08- 80381, 08-80993. 08-80994
+
+Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq.
+
+Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq.
+
+Leopold Kuvin, P.A.
+
+2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
+
+Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
+
+Phone: (561) 515-1400/Fax: (561) 515-1401
+
+skuvinaleopoldkuvin.cm
+
+tleopold@leopoldkuvin.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804
+
+Brad Esq.
+
+Jaffe, Weissing,
+
+Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
+
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+
+Phone: (954) 524-2820/Fax: (954) 524-2822
+
+bradOpathtoiustice.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+
+Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor
+
+Of Criminal Law
+
+Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah
+
+332 South 1400 East, Room 101
+
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730
+
+Voice: 801-585-5202
+
+Fax: (801) 581-6897
+
+casselloff4law.utah.adu
+
+Isidro Manuel Esq.
+
+Elkins & Boehringer
+
+224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+Phone: (561) 832-8033/Fax: (561) 832-7137
+
+isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749103/EFTA02749103.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749103/EFTA02749103.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..770e39c6cd775cddb25a53227da81a943ad34c72
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749103/EFTA02749103.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,307 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749103.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 5,
+ "chars": 4385,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 2.0,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 404.43707275390625,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 404.43707275390625,
+ 99.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 99.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "NOTICE TO STRIKE (DE 523)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 220.93199999999996,
+ 375.84000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.085205078125,
+ 375.84000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.085205078125,
+ 391.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 220.93199999999996,
+ 391.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 223.38,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.1402587890625,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.1402587890625,
+ 86.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 223.38,
+ 86.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 260.712,
+ 71.905029296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.6163330078125,
+ 71.905029296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.6163330078125,
+ 86.36248779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 260.712,
+ 86.36248779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 83
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 42
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 75
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 38
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749103"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749108/EFTA02749108.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749108/EFTA02749108.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3d60593344a9e5366918e81325ede0e2f59c733
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749108/EFTA02749108.md
@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/IIM
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF SENSITIVE FIFTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENTS AND SUBMIT UN-REDACTED ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), submits his reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe's Response (DE #524) and Plaintiffs, Jane Doe Nos. 2 — 8's Response (DE #525) to Epstein's Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versions of Sensitive Fifth Amendment Arguments and Submit tln-Redacted Arguments to the Court ("Motion") (DE #518) and states:
+
+- 1. Plaintiffs' primary contention in their Responses is that Epstein should not be permitted to file "new" redacted arguments in support of his Rule 4 Appeal. Plaintiffs' Responses misinterpret Epstein's Motion.
+- 2. Most, if not all, of the arguments Epstein intends to file in redacted format and submit to for in-camera inspection have already been filed in redacted format and submitted to the Court (i.e. to Magistrate Judge ) for in-camera inspection. See DE #s 242, 293, 390 and 480. In fact, Plaintiffs, Jane Doe Nos. 2 — 8, conceded, and correctly so, that "[Epstein] had
+
+the right to make in camera submissions on the underlying Motion...." See Response (DE #525) at 2.
+
+3. However, in an abundance of caution, Epstein seeks leave from Judge Marra to essentially re•file the redacted arguments related to the "target offenses" that have already been filed and submitted to Judge for an in-camera inspection. See DE #s 242, 293, 390 and 480. The purpose of filing the redacted arguments is to tailor them to the instant Rule 4 Appeal and to aid the Court in understanding the application of such arguments to the appeal (as opposed to generally referring to prior arguments and leaving the Court with the task of connection the dots and going back and forth referencing prior orders and motions). I
+
+4. In her March 4, 2010 Order (DE #480), Judge sua sponte allowed the in camera submissions provided by Epstein. See DE #480 at 5.
+
+5. Now that Epstein is filing aRule 4 Appeal, he is following the Court's direction and seeking approval from Judge Marra before filing the redacted arguments and providing same to the Court in-camera. Again, substantially all of the redacted arguments Epstein seeks to file are the same as arguments previously submitted in-camera and considered by Judge See DE #s 242, 293, 390 and 480.
+
+6. Moreover, to the extent any of Epstein's arguments are considered "new," the Court has the discretion to entertain same. See I= v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting that "the district court acknowledged that it had discretion to consider ME' timeliness argument [made for the first time in his appeal of the magistrate judge's order]," eitis United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615 (9th Cir. 2000)).
+
+While some referencing on the Court's part will be necessary, allowing the redacted filing will allow for better readership.
+
+7. Jane Doe Nos. 2-8 do not cite any authority for their contention that "[a]dditional in camera submissions should not be allowed on appeal." See Response (DE #525) at 2. Instead, they cite the Ninth Circuit Howell case, which held that aCourt has discretion to reject newly offered evidence in an appeal of a magistrate judge's decision. Plaintiffs advance no authority whatsoever for their position; they instead concede Epstein's position that he has a right to make in camera submissions.
+
+8. Simply put, Epstein wants to ensure that in determining his Rule 4 Appeal, Judge Marra allows and considers the arguments previously submitted to Judge in-camera and filed in redacted format.
+
+9. Plaintiffs, Jane Doe Nos. 2-8, concede that "[Epstein] had the right to make in camera submissions on the underlying Motion...." See Response (DE #525) at 2. Yet they also take the inconsistent position that Epstein should not be permitted to file redacted arguments because of the associated difficulty in responding to such arguments. Id. How can Plaintiffs concede that Epstein has the right to make in camera submissions in one breath and then argue that he should be not be permitted to do so in the next? Epstein is not surprised by this inconsistent approach.
+
+10. Plaintiffs cannot claim any prejudice resulting from Epstein filing redacted arguments since the filing of the same arguments in redacted form has already been approved by the Court and the Court has considered the un-redacted arguments in camera. age DE #480.
+
+11. Despite Jane Doe's unsupported contention, Epstein's Motion is not an attempt to "run out the clock" and block Jane Doe from obtaining discovery, which is readily apparent from this timely reply. Instead, Epstein is merely protecting his Constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution as well as other rules of law. The theme and thrust is that Epstein must provide this information to the Court in redacted form to preserve his Fifth Amendment rights.
+
+12. For the foregoing reasons, Epstein requests that the Court grant his Motion (DE #518) and permit him to file redacted arguments and submit same in un-redacted form to the Court for in-camera review in connection with his Rule 4 Appeals. Defendant also respectfully requests that this Court provide in its order the procedure to follow for submitting in camera Rule 4 Appeals for both Jane Doe and Jane Doe Nos. 2 — 8 as well as a reasonable deadline for submitting and filing same.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: s/Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit(Ociclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that atrue copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 16th day of April, 2010.
+
+By: s/Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rerit@bc1claw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 moikeifelbcIclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+**Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein**
+**Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA** [REDACTED]
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+Suite 2218
+Miami, FL 33160
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+[ssm@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ssm@sexabuseattorney.com)
+[ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs*
+*In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994*
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+561-659-8300
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+[jagesq@bellsouth.net](mailto:jagesq@bellsouth.net)
+
+*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein*
+
+Brad [REDACTED], Esq.
+[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos &
+Lehrman, PL
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+[brad@pathtojustice.com](mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893*
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+*Pro Hac Vice*
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+801-585-5202
+801-585-6833 Fax
+[cassellp@law.utah.edu](mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu)
+
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+Isidro M. [REDACTED], Esq.
+[REDACTED] Law Firm, P.A.
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561-832-7732
+561-832-7137 F
+[isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net](mailto:isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469*
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+Miami, FL 33130
+305 358-2800
+Fax: 305 358-2382
+[rjosefsberg@podhurst.com](mailto:rjosefsberg@podhurst.com)
+[kezell@podhurst.com](mailto:kezell@podhurst.com)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749108/EFTA02749108.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749108/EFTA02749108.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a74582225b8eed050de5d00d8fbb7dac39a8fa2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749108/EFTA02749108.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,303 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749108.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 5,
+ "chars": 8596,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 7.45,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 198.93599999999998,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.52716064453125,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.52716064453125,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.93599999999998,
+ 98.82
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR \nLEAVE TO FILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF SENSITIVE FIFTH AMENDMENT \nARGUMENTS AND SUBMIT UN-REDACTED ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 85.96000000000001,
+ 358.83
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.724,
+ 358.83
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.724,
+ 403.38
+ ],
+ [
+ 85.96000000000001,
+ 403.38
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.582,
+ 432.54
+ ],
+ [
+ 365.94399999999996,
+ 432.54
+ ],
+ [
+ 365.94399999999996,
+ 445.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.582,
+ 445.5
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA [REDACTED]",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 185.428,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.29200000000003,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.29200000000003,
+ 115.01999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 185.428,
+ 115.01999999999998
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 257
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 376
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 380
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 300
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749108"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749113/EFTA02749113.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749113/EFTA02749113.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fdcfab2fea9031c434f65543772847733172a123
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749113/EFTA02749113.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AS TO JANE DOE (08-801191
+
+This matter came before the Court on a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Deadlines. Having considered the Joint Motion it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED as follows:
+
+- 1. Jane Doe's discovery cutoff is extended to May 31, 2010.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010.
+
+Kenneth A. Marra United States District Judge
+
+Courtesy Copies: Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749113/EFTA02749113.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749113/EFTA02749113.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1eea308c3964dd4f47cfe4657f22f21bc1aa3e7b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749113/EFTA02749113.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749113.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 800,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.8,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 415.5064392089844,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 415.5064392089844,
+ 100.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 100.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME \nTO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AS TO \nJANE DOE (08-801191",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 137.7,
+ 359.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 480.82525634765625,
+ 359.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 480.82525634765625,
+ 403.85302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 137.7,
+ 403.85302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749113"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749114/EFTA02749114.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749114/EFTA02749114.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb000eceaa3cc4c358ea196ebf3034e7586c992b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749114/EFTA02749114.md
@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AS TO JANE DOE (08-80893)
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, and Plaintiff, JANE DOE, by and through her undersigned attorney respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time to complete discovery deadlines, and as good cause in support of granting the motion, states as follows:
+
+- 1. This case is currently set on a two week trial docket commencing on July 19, 2010.
+- 2. The majority of the depositions have been completed, however, a number of witness depositions have yet to occur, including expert witnesses.
+- 3. The scheduling of depositions in this matter has become much more difficult since the case was consolidated on May 14, 2009, due to the number of attorneys involved and
+
+Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 2
+
+the fact that witnesses, plaintiffs and the defendant may only be deposed once. (See Order Consolidating Cases for Purpose of Discovery and Procedural Motions That Relate to Multiple Cases). Additionally, many of the witnesses retained their own counsel, and the depositions need to be coordinated with those attorneys' schedules.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant request that this Court enter an order granting the Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Deadline.
+
+# CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1
+
+Counsel for the parties conferred via e-mail and are in agreement with moving the above dates.
+
+> By: /s/ Robert D. Critton ROBERT D. CRITTON, ESQ. Florida Bar # 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+### Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 23rd day of April, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Robert D. Critton ROBERT D. CR1TTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit@bciclaw.com
+
+Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al.
+Page 3
+
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar #617296
+
+[mpike@bclclaw.com](mailto:mpike@bclclaw.com)
+
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
+
+303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561/842-2820 Phone
+
+561/515-3148 Fax
+
+*(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)*
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+**Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein**
+**Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/...**
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+
+Suite 2218
+
+Miami, FL 33160
+
+305-931-2200
+
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+
+[ssm@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ssm@sexabuseattorney.com)
+
+[ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs*
+
+*In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994*
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+
+250 Australian Avenue South
+
+Suite 1400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+
+561-659-8300
+
+Brad [REDACTED] Esquire
+
+[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED] Fistos &
+
+Lehrman, PL
+
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+
+Suite 2
+
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+
+[brad@pathtojustice.com](mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com)
+
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893*
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+
+*Pro Hac Vice*
+
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+
+801-585-5202
+
+801-585-6833 Fax
+
+[cassellp@law.utah.edu](mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu)
+
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+
+Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 4
+
+Fax: 561-835-8691 jaaeso(4)bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+
+Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 riosefsberg@podhurst.com
+
+kezell®podhurst.com Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656
+
+Isidro M. =, Esq. Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F isidroaarcia®bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749114/EFTA02749114.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749114/EFTA02749114.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4a604890c9370dcf01ea14ce97155caa17ef8dd8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749114/EFTA02749114.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749114.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 4425,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 8.76,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 417.7664489746094,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 417.7664489746094,
+ 114.35302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 114.35302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME \nTO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES AS TO \nJANE DOE (08-80893)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 169.524,
+ 373.40999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 453.7532043457031,
+ 373.40999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 453.7532043457031,
+ 418.4730224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 169.524,
+ 418.4730224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 160.95600000000002,
+ 269.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 494.396728515625,
+ 269.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 494.396728515625,
+ 285.7330627441406
+ ],
+ [
+ 160.95600000000002,
+ 285.7330627441406
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.36799999999997,
+ 477.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 367.20050048828125,
+ 477.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 367.20050048828125,
+ 492.363037109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.36799999999997,
+ 492.363037109375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/...",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 192.168,
+ 339.39
+ ],
+ [
+ 395.964,
+ 339.39
+ ],
+ [
+ 395.964,
+ 381.51
+ ],
+ [
+ 192.168,
+ 381.51
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 95
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 54
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749114"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749118/EFTA02749118.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749118/EFTA02749118.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2a4b6355254c9f7be788fd41dd31a189e3ff692a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749118/EFTA02749118.md
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRAi
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER
+
+THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versions of Sensitive Fifth Amendment Arguments and Submit Un-Redacted Arguments to the Court (DE 518). Plaintiffs filed responses to the motion (DE's 524, 525), and Defendant filed a reply (DE 529). The motion is fully briefed and ripe for review. The Court has reviewed the motion, response, reply, and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
+
+Defendant states that he intends to file a request for a Rule 4 Review and Appeal of portions of Magistrate Judge Orders dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462), March 4, 2010 (DE 480), and April 1, 2010 (DE 513). In the instant motion, Defendant moves "for leave to file redacted versions of sensitive Fifth Amendment arguments and submit original, un-redacted
+
+arguments to the Court for in-camera inspection." (Mot. at 11 1).'
+
+First, the Court denies Defendant's motion for permission to redact legal arguments in his memoranda to be filed on appeal. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that it would unfairly prejudice Plaintiffs, as it would be difficult, if not impossible, to respond adequate! to critical legal arguments which have been redacted. Defendant relies upon cases that do not support allowing the filing of legal memoranda with redacted arguments. See U.S. v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F.Supp. 1503 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (allowing the taking of pleas in camera and the filing of redacted plea agreements based upon a discretionary determination of compelling government interest); In re Duque, 134 B.R. 679, 687 (S.D. Fla. 1991) (affirming bankruptcy court's procedure- by which appellants may redact the communicative materials from the documents produced to appellee and submit the original documents under seal for the bankruptcy court's in camera inspection); Sterling Merchandising, Inc. v. Nestle, S.A. 2008 WL 3200702 (D. Puerto Rico 2008) (acknowledging that parties can file certain privileged information in a redacted format); Methodist Hospitals, Inc. v. M, 91 F.3d 1026 (7'h Cir. 1996) (allowing redaction of physician salaries from brief as "gratuitous" rather than seal entire memorandum).
+
+Second, the Court will not consider in Defendant's appeal any legal arguments or documentary evidence which were not previously provided to Judge in the discovery motions and motions for reconsideration being appealed. "Systemic efficiencies would be
+
+ x27; Defendant points out that it previously filed briefs before Judge in which substantial portions of the arguments were blacked out and unredacted briefs were submitted for in camera review. See DE's 282, 283. However Defendant did not seek leave to file his legal arguments in a redacted format, nor did Judge formally approve such a procedure. The mere fact that Judge previously acquiesced to Defendant's filing of memoranda with his legal arguments redacted is not any indication that it was proper or that this Court will allow it in connection with the instant appeal.
+
+frustrated and the magistrate judge's role reduced to that of a mere dress rehearsal if a party were allowed to feint and weave at the initial hearing, and save its knockout punch for the second round." v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009) (gtaga United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, the District Court has discretion to refuse to consider Defendant's argument that is raised for the first time on appeal. See a McNeil, 557 F.3d at 1292 ("a district court has discretion to decline to consider a party's argument when that argument was not first presented to the magistrate judge"); see, e.g., v. Harris 2009 WL 5214965,'2 (S.D. Fla. Dec 29, 2009) ("the Court declines to consider a non-jurisdictional argument that Dr. Poveda raises for the first time in his Objections to the Report").
+
+Finally, the Court denies Defendant's request that this Court "provide in its order the procedure for submitting in camera Rule 4 Appeals for both Jane Doe and Jane Doe Nos. 2-8 as well as a reasonable deadline for submitting and filing same." See Reply at ¶ 12. Plaintiffs have not even requested permission to file "in camera Rule 4 Appeals."
+
+Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versions of Sensitive Fifth Amendment Arguments and Submit Un-Redacted Arguments to the Court (DE 518) is DENIED. The deadline for Defendant to file his appeal, if he so chooses, is extended to May 5, 2010.
+
+DONE AND ORDERED in at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 26th day of April, 2010.
+
+KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge
+
+Copies to: all counsel of record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749118/EFTA02749118.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749118/EFTA02749118.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74c5d2a24cdbfb69ae26b89ee0f2688aedb92143
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749118/EFTA02749118.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749118.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 5000,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.88,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 203.796,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.5581359863281,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.5581359863281,
+ 100.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 203.796,
+ 100.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 369.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.7379150390625,
+ 369.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.7379150390625,
+ 383.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 383.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 74
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749118"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749122/EFTA02749122.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749122/EFTA02749122.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3d0e6a1d48201a59f9bb66a980e6592dafce657
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749122/EFTA02749122.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER
+
+The above-styled cause has been set for a status conference regarding the pending and anticipated discovery appeals on Thursday, May 6, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. before United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra, 701 Clematis Street, Courtroom 4, West Palm Beach, Florida.
+
+Thirty (30) minutes have been set aside for this status conference. Defendant need not file his anticipated appeal (as referenced in DE 532) until after the status conference.
+
+DONE AND ORDERED in at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 27th day of April, 2010.
+
+KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge
+
+Copies to: all counsel of record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749122/EFTA02749122.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749122/EFTA02749122.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..300f82b91f1b4cfda5f5bc8da871763399ea9dcb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749122/EFTA02749122.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749122.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 927,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.86,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.5581359863281,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.5581359863281,
+ 100.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 100.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 369.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.7633361816406,
+ 369.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.7633361816406,
+ 383.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 383.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749122"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749123/EFTA02749123.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749123/EFTA02749123.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14ba1c1d09e2b9b9ff76e507253985021c382eeb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749123/EFTA02749123.md
@@ -0,0 +1,199 @@
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ [REDACTED]
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+-vs-
+
+VOLUME IV OF IV
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+CONTINUED VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
+JANE DOE NO. 4
+
+Friday, February 12, 2010
+10:10 - 12:27 p.m.
+
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 115
+West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+
+Reported By:
+Cynthia [REDACTED], RPR, FPR
+Notary Public, State of Florida
+Prose Court Reporting
+
+**Certified Copy**
+
+) 832-7500
+
+PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
+
+(561) 832-7506
+
+ally signed by cynthia [REDACTED] (601-051-976-2934)
+ally signed by cynthia [REDACTED] (601-051-976-2934)
+ally signed by cynthia (601-051-976-2934)
+ally signed by cynthia (601-051-976-2934)
+ally signed by cynthia (601-051-976-2934)
+
+
+
+1
+
+2
+
+3
+
+were?
+
+A. No.
+
+Q. Did you and she ever have the same boyfriend? Not at the same time but did you ever 5 date the same guy?
+
+6 A. No.
+
+7 Q. Do you know whether or not she's ever been 8 arrested?
+
+9 A. No.
+
+Q. Do you know if she's ever been married?
+
+:1 A. Yeah.
+
+:2 Q. Okay. And was she married?
+
+3 A. I just heard about it, not through her. I :4 just -- I don't know. I don't know anything about it. I just heard that she had been or maybe she is. I don't :6 know.
+
+:9
+
+3
+
+Q. Okay. What was the name of your soccer coach in high school?
+
+A. Bill \_
+
+Q. Is he still in the area?
+
+A. No.
+
+Q. Where is he?
+
+A. I don't know.
+
+Q. When was the last time you knew where he was?
+
+32-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506
+
+by cynthia by cynthia by Cynthia ,\_ by cynthla WWI by cynthia
+
+
+
+(601-051-976-2934) (601-051-976-2934) (601.051.976-2934) (601-051-976-2934)
+
+2
+
+3
+
+4
+
+5
+
+6
+
+7
+
+8
+
+9
+
+10
+
+11
+
+12
+
+13
+
+14
+
+15
+
+:6
+
+17
+
+18
+
+19
+
+20
+
+21
+
+23
+
+iq
+
+25
+
+A. I heard he was moving from Palm so that was the last I heard whenever he moved from IIIIIPalm.
+
+Q. But you didn't know where?
+
+A. No.
+
+Q. To where?. And who was your soccer coach at glip
+
+A. Rocky.
+
+Q. I take it it wasn't Rocky Balboa?
+
+A. No.
+
+Q. Does Rocky have a last name?
+
+A. Yeah. I am drawing a blank what his name -- I don't want to mispronounce it.
+
+Q. Is he still the coach?
+
+A. No.
+
+Q. What's your best shot at pronouncing it?
+
+A. I don't know. I don't know what it is.
+
+Q. Is -- do you know where he is?
+
+A. I mean, I am guessing in Boca.
+
+Q. But, but he is not coaching at imp
+
+A. No.
+
+Q. Do you know if he is coaching anywhere?
+
+A. No.
+
+MR. LUTTIER: Okay. I need to take a quick break.
+
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at
+
+(561) 832-;500
+
+signed by cynthia htin7titliY signed by Cynthia lath\_ ty signed by cynthia iti Itily signed by Cynthia IY signed by cynthia PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506
+
+(601-051-976.2934) (601.051-976.2934) (601.051-976.2934) (601-061.976.2934)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749123/EFTA02749123.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749123/EFTA02749123.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f865b9edfcb65a1ab06d3b8e236ed2de9a1c7f4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749123/EFTA02749123.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749123.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 3018,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 6.12,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_155.jpeg",
+ "_page_1_Picture_23.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 85.85999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 422.28,
+ 85.85999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 422.28,
+ 113.4
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 113.4
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 240
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 130
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749123"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749123/_page_0_Picture_155.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749123/_page_0_Picture_155.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1190206a91a5b4bb09df052668b913024b43af77
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749123/_page_0_Picture_155.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:ed89fc9f9a5d388ea63ddd37814ed8d298b51b6508c662f34394345cd4489702
+size 5063
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749123/_page_1_Picture_23.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749123/_page_1_Picture_23.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3222a625abea250d2d212e35b7c59da21652ee0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749123/_page_1_Picture_23.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:5d5ab946639bdde9e36b52c9718edb9631a21de6da72ce42cbb7bc86baeaaadd
+size 1395
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749126/EFTA02749126.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749126/EFTA02749126.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f37cbffc810a6840b5e3326f15a63ce16a71ced4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749126/EFTA02749126.md
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. : 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/IIIIIII
+
+JANE DOE 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+Vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+CERTIFIED COPY
+
+Defendant.
+
+/
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+LOCATION: Accurate Reporting & video Service 814 E. Silver Springs Blvd. Suite A Ocala, FL 34470
+
+- - - DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT TAKEN AS TO JANE DOE #4 OF RUIN
+
+DATE: Thursday, January 21, 2010
+
+TIME: 1:18 p.m. - 4:46 p.m.
+
+REPORTED BY: Darlene G. Robison, RPR Notary Public, State of Florida
+
+ACCURATE REPORTING & VIDEO SERVICE 352-368-2545
+
+o meet with her.
+
+A. That's all I know.
+
+Q. okay. As to what the conversation was, or what his report was, or what -- you have no idea, correct?
+
+A. correct.
+
+Q. who was her -- did she have the same soccer coach at university all four years?
+
+A. Yeah.
+
+Q. what was his or her name?
+
+A. Rocky -- he's got a crazy last name. I can't pronounce his last name. Arrouzzo (phonetic) or something like that.
+
+Q. Arrouzzo?
+
+A. I can't really pronounce his last name.
+
+Q. Is he still there now or at least --
+
+A. No.
+
+Q. He'S gone now?
+
+A. Yes.
+
+Q. Do you know where he went?
+
+A. No.
+
+Q. Did she have the same soccer coach when she was in high school?
+
+A. Yes.
+
+Q. who was that?
+
+A. Bill .
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749126/EFTA02749126.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749126/EFTA02749126.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..629c19c2b19fc3e639c38f31a8a5d0b1ea3bb01b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749126/EFTA02749126.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749126.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1352,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.14,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 192
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749126"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749128/EFTA02749128.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749128/EFTA02749128.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c98fe551d7456135e5e12cf2a5eac32104cb8c5d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749128/EFTA02749128.md
@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/IIIIIII
+
+JANE DOE 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+VS.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+## CERTF,Taa. copy
+
+Defendant.
+
+/
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT TAKEN AS TO JANE DOE #4 OF Rang ZINO
+
+LOCATION: Accurate Reporting & video Service 814 E. Silver Springs Blvd. Suite A Ocala, FL 34470
+
+DATE: Thursday, January 21, 2010
+
+TIME: 1:18 p.m. - 4:46 p.m.
+
+REPORTED BY: Darlene G. Robison, RPR Notary Public, state of Florida
+
+you aware that she also was seeing Mr. Epstein?
+
+A. At that time, no, I didn't know.
+
+Q. During the time that she was dating IIIIIIIIIdid you have any knowledge that she was cheating on him and having relationships with other men? And I'm not including Mr. Epstein in that.
+
+MR. HOROWITZ: Object to form.
+
+THE WITNESS: No, I didn't know.
+
+Q. (BY MR. CRITTON, JR.) During the time she was dating were you aware that she was having relationships with other individuals?
+
+MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form.
+
+Q (BY MR. CRITTON, JR.) And by relationships, I mean other sexual relationships with other individuals, and was cheating on him?
+
+A. No.
+
+MR. HOROWITZ: Object to form.
+
+Q. (BY MR. CRITTON, JR.) To your knowledge has your daughter ever been pregnant?
+
+A. I found out -- I found out that she was, yes, recently.
+
+Q. And how did you find that out?
+
+A. I saw it in the deposition.
+
+Q. Were you -- did you read it yourself or did someone bring it to your attention?
+
+itself, let alone what -- let alone being guided to different places by different people.
+
+Q. Did Stever -- has she ever expressed how she felt about having the abortions?
+
+A. She was pretty emotional one time. It's not like we really discussed it enough to really -- I mean, you can kind of know what's going on without having to bring up a discussion.
+
+Q. Did you, from at least her tone on the phone, did you conclude that it was, that is, having three - again, having gotten pregnant and having terminated all three of the pregnancies was a pretty traumatic event for her?
+
+MR. HOROWITZ: object to the form.
+
+THE WITNESS: Yes, it's -- yes.
+
+Q. (BY MR. CRITTON, JR.) She testified also in a deposition that she had been -- there had been a videotape made of her and another female in various positions that some of her friends at least, or she was accused of having done, that would have been quote, unquote, a lesbian affair. were you ever aware of that fact?
+
+MR. HOROWITZ: object to form. Can you proffer what admissible evidence you intend to gather from that question?
+
+MR. CRITTON, JR.: No.
+
+MR. HOROWITZ: object to the form. completely improper.
+
+THE WITNESS: Okay, ask the question again.
+
+Q. (BY MR. CRITTON, JR.) Yeah. were you ever aware that she made avideo or video was made of she and a person named Tammy when she was in high school that ended up on the Internet that showed them in, I don't know sexually explicit but in, what some people have said, in their underwear but it looked sexually explicit?
+
+MR. HOROWITZ: object to the form.
+
+THE WITNESS: I -- when she was in high school, kids and cameras, especially young girls do the craziest things. You can't -- and take these pictures. I was aware there was something out there. I didn't see it. It was to my knowledge or my familiar that all these kids do all this crazy crap with their faces and this, and when they're at aparty (gestured) they're doing all that crazy stuff. So could take a picture of anybody and put it up and make a big joke about it. To me it was meaningless. didn't even see it. That was my understanding.
+
+Q. (BY MR. CRITTON, JR.) All I'm trying to do is lay a predicate. Did she ever discuss that with you?
+
+A. That's it, yeah.
+
+Sally or sue a or has she said such and such has filed suit against Mr. Epstein?
+
+A. I don't think we really had a discussion like that, i think it's just something that I know.
+
+Q. what do you know? who do you think -- who else do you think has filed suit against Mr. Epstein?
+
+A. Well, I don't know. I guess, according to the news and Internet, there's been quite a few people. So if there's quite a few people, I guess there was a group of them that hung around, I can only assume that maybe it was a few people that she hung around with.
+
+Q. who are you assuming?
+
+A. Hailey, Loren. who else was in that little ...? Let me see, Iris afriend. Anybody that was her friend could be a -- or in that group in Palm could actually be a nice candidate for that situation. I guess there was quite a few, and I don't know how they don't know how many, and I don't know the whole situation. And I don't know if it was just from Palm or from other places, but I know Palm was one. And I don't know if there's
+
+Q. And you know that from what you've read?
+
+A. well, i know that from what I read.
+
+o: Q. Okay. Do you ever -- did your daughter ever tell you that she worked at agentleman's club, a strip club?
+
+MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form.
+
+Q. (BY MR. CRITTON, JR.) Whether it was for a minute or for hours?
+
+A. No.
+
+Q. If I ask you to assume that she testified she tried out for three hours at astrip club called Dancers Royale in Orlando, has anyone told you that?
+
+A. No.
+
+Q. Has your daughter ever said to you over the years, again high school years through now, that she said, dad -- it may have been with just you or with you and your wife -- such and such happened and I'm really embarrassed about it or that really is causing me problems?
+
+A. No.
+
+Q. Okay. Have you ever heard the name Clymon, (phonetic) Dr. Clymon, a psychiatrist, from the Bay area in California?
+
+A. Have I ever heard the name?
+
+Q. Yeah.
+
+A. what is he, what kind of doctor?
+
+Q. He's a psychiatrist.
+
+A. Is that the doctor that Ilwent to go see?
+
+Q. That was the one that was hired by her attorneys
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749128/EFTA02749128.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749128/EFTA02749128.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61d910c1128569ea1cbd73a2c94e8558b2df0409
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749128/EFTA02749128.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,392 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749128.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 9,
+ "chars": 5936,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.52,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA \nCASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/IIIIIII",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 154.836,
+ 93.15
+ ],
+ [
+ 446.10064697265625,
+ 93.15
+ ],
+ [
+ 446.10064697265625,
+ 133.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 154.836,
+ 133.65
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTF,Taa. \ncopy",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 388.62,
+ 192.77999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.6691284179688,
+ 192.77999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.6691284179688,
+ 245.39227294921875
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.62,
+ 245.39227294921875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT \nTAKEN AS TO JANE DOE #4 \nOF Rang ZINO",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 416.34000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.02667236328125,
+ 416.34000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.02667236328125,
+ 456.5353088378906
+ ],
+ [
+ 203.18400000000003,
+ 456.5353088378906
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 134
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 244
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 268
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 296
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 222
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749128"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749137/EFTA02749137.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749137/EFTA02749137.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..42e4111a2a1dcb4cc1b7e4ec3edd847032d5cf23
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749137/EFTA02749137.md
@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+2
+
+3
+
+4
+
+5
+
+6
+
+7
+
+8
+
+9
+
+4
+
+5
+
+6
+
+7
+
+8
+
+9
+
+2
+
+3
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. : 08-CIV-80119-MARRAIIIIIIII
+
+JANE DOE 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+COPY
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+> - - - DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT TAKEN AS TO JANE DOE #4 OF mill 1. zilll - - -
+
+LOCATION: Accurate Reporting & Video Service 814 E. Silver Springs Blvd. Suite A Ocala, FL 34470
+
+DATE: Thursday, January 21, 2010
+
+TIME: 4:57 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
+
+REPORTED BY: Darlene G. Robison., RPR Notary Public, State of Florida
+
+EXHIBIT
+
+ACCURATE REPORTING & VIDEO SERVICE 352-368-2545
+
+Q. Did you talk about it in person or did you talk about it over the phone?
+
+A. Person.
+
+Q. was that over the Christmas period?
+
+A. After.
+
+Q. Did she ever -- did she ever tell you that she had made avideo of she and Me in an intimate relationship which she then showed to other people?
+
+A. No
+
+Q. Did -- when she talked to you about having had the abortion, was she pretty upset?
+
+A. Yes.
+
+Q. Did she cry?
+
+A. Yes. No, no cry. She feel shamed. She was I can tell you because I don't want to see her face when I was talking with her and I was very, like, sad. don't see her reaction because 1 was so, like, sad, very disappoint.
+
+Q. Did you act disappointed, that is, could she see that in your face?
+
+A. I don't know if she saw, I don't know.
+
+Q. Did you say anything back to her when she told you?
+
+A. No.
+
+Q. As you sit here today, miss - you don't
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749137/EFTA02749137.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749137/EFTA02749137.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ec0a676bae9cb9418ba1468a45a7badbad88fa9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749137/EFTA02749137.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749137.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1586,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.99,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 98
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 225
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749137"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749139/EFTA02749139.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749139/EFTA02749139.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5d8181756d996d3166bdecac8a0176cdda1cc2d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749139/EFTA02749139.md
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
+
+## PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 4's MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO THE DEPOSITIONS OF CERTAIN NON-PARTY WITNESSES
+
+Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4 ("Plaintiff"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4's Motion for Protective Order, pursuant to S.D.F1a.L.R. 7.1, and states as follows:
+
+I. On April 19, 2010, Defendant Epstein's counsel advised Plaintiff's counsel that he was setting dates for additional depositions related to Jane Doe No. 4. The persons to be subpoenaed for deposition include two of Jane Doe No. 4's soccer coaches. To Plaintiff's knowledge, neither of them is aware that Jane Doe No. 4 has a case against Defendant Epstein, nor are they aware of the underlying facts of Jane Doe No. 4's visits to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach.
+
+2. To date, Defendant Epstein has taken ten (10) depositions relating to Jane Doe No. 4. Jane Doe No. 4's deposition was taken over a two day period, encompassing 595 transcript pages. In addition, her mother, father and sister had their depositions taken by Defendant Epstein, as have her current boyfriend and ex-boyfriend, and her current mental health counselor. Defendant's counsel has also questioned other plaintiffs about Jane Doe No. 4, particularly Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 7, who are friends of Jane Doe No. 4.1
+
+3. The extensive depositions taken of Jane Doe No. 4, her family, friends, counselor, and boyfriends have not indicated that Plaintiff had a close relationship with either of her soccer coaches. They are scarcely mentioned at all. See Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, pp. 517-518 attached hereto as Exhibit "1"; see also Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4's father [RZI, p. 145 attached hereto as Exhibit "2". Given the lack of testimony about them, and their unawareness of the allegations of sexual abuse underlying this case, Plaintiff verily believes their testimony can provide no material and relevant information. At the same time, the inevitable disclosures of Jane Doe 4's childhood sexual abuse and other private information during the depositions of Jane Doe No. 4's soccer coaches will serve to embarrass and humiliate Jane Doe No. 4. Any value they might hypothetically provide as witnesses is far outweighed by these adverse effects to Jane Doe No. 4.
+
+4. The depositions of the soccer coaches is a continuation of the Defendant's pattern of harassing, embarrassing, intimidating, and attempting to ruin the reputations of Jane Doe No. 4 and his other victims. As has been demonstrated on prior occasions, these victims feel shame
+
+Additionally, Jane Doe No. 4 does not object to the deposition of Plaintiff's former college roommate, whose deposition is now being set for a mutually agreeable date. Additionally, she does not object to the deposition of another close friend in high school and college, M, whose deposition was scheduled for April 7, 2010, but was cancelled by Defendant.
+
+and fear about people in their communities learning the most intimate and embarrassing details of their lives, including their personal, sexual, and medical histories. See, e.g., Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for No-Contact Order (D.E. 113); Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7's Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel and/or Identify Plaintiffs in the Style of this Case (D.E. 144); Plaintiffs Jane Does' 2-7 Motion for Protective Order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 223); Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8's Motion for Protective Order as to Jeffrey Epstein's Attendance at Deposition of Plaintiffs, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 292); Affidavit of Dr. Kliman (D.E. 223, Ex. A); Jane Doe No. 4's Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Protective Order (D.E. 306); Order, dated October 23, 2009 (D.E. 369) (forbidding Epstein from attending Jane Doe No. 4's deposition); Omnibus Order (forbidding Epstein's attorneys from repetitive and abusive questioning during Plaintiffs' depositions) (D.E. 433). See also Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order (regarding deposition of Jane Doe No. 4's sister, Y.B.) (DE 267).
+
+5. Defendant Epstein's counsel has on prior occasions consistently and unnecessarily used depositions as a means to inform non-party witnesses about the most intimate details of the Plaintiffs' lives by using leading questions that disclose facts to the witnesses, without establishing any foundation for what the witnesses already know. For example, Jane Doe No. 4's father was asked the following questions that were gratuitously and unnecessarily loaded with personal information about Jane Doe No. 4:
+
+"During the time that [Jane Doe No. 4] was dating [her ex-boyfriend], were you aware that she was having relationships with other individuals? And by relationships, I mean other sexual relationships with other individuals, and was cheating on him?" (Exh. 3, p. 132);
+
+• "[Jane Doe No. 4] testified also in deposition that she had been—there had been a videotape made of her and another female in various positions that some of her friends at least, or she was accused of having done, that would have been quote, unquote, a lesbian affair. Were you ever aware of that fact?" (Exh. 3, p. 137);
+
+• "Were you ever aware that [Jane Doe No. 4] made a video or video was made of she and a person named Tammy when she was in high school that ended up on the Internet that showed them in, I don't know sexually explicit but in, what some people have said, in their underwear but it looked sexually explicit?" (Exh. 3, p. 138); and
+
+• "Did your daughter ever tell you that she worked at a gentleman's club, a strip club?"; after the witness answered "no", Epstein's counsel asked: "If I ask you to assume that she testified that she tried out for three hours at a strip club called Dancers Royale in Orlando, has anyone told you that?" (Exh. 3, p. 143-44).
+
+See Exhibit 3, deposition excerpts of Jane Doe No. 4's father.
+
+6. Jane Doe No. 4's mother was asked questions similar to those asked of Jane Doe No. 4's father, as well as questions such as "Did she ever tell you that she had made a video of she and [her ex-boyfriend] in an intimate relationship which she then showed to other people?", without first being asked if she had any knowledge of her daughter's sex life or her daughter making a video. See Exhibit 4, deposition excerpt of Jane Doe No. 4's mother.
+
+7. Defendant now wants to take the deposition of Rocky Orezzoli, Jane Doe No. 4's college soccer coach, and Bill =, Doe No. 4's soccer coach in middle and high school. The past conduct of Epstein's counsel suggests that they intend to disclose to these witnesses through deposition questioning private, personal details relating to Jane Doe No. 4, including her allegations of child sexual abuse and her sexual history.
+
+8. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c)(I) allows the court to issue an order to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense by several methods, including "(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery," and "(D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters" upon good cause shown by the moving party. "The good cause standard for issuing a protective order requires the Court to balance the moving party's interest in preventing the discovery sought against the other person's interest in seeking the discovery." v. Burlage, 2009 WL 2230794 \* 4 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (citing Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001)).
+
+9. The persons sought to be deposed would not have information probative of Jane Doe No. 4's claims or Defendant's defenses. At best, they are fishing expeditions. The ►imited **information the witnesses may be able to provide about Jane Doe No. 4 would be cumulative of other information already provided by the plethora of witnesses who have testified about Jane Doe No. 4.**
+
+**10. Accordingly, Rule 26(c)(1) protective order is appropriate. If this Court is not inclined to prohibit the depositions of the soccer coaches entirely, then Plaintiff respectfully requests that the deposition questioning be restricted or limited to prevent leading questions that cause unnecessary disclosures of private, embarrassing and humiliating facts and information to the soccer coach witnesses.**
+
+**WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe 4 respectfully requests that this Court issue a protective order prohibiting or restricting the depositions of Rocky Orezzoli and Bill =, and all such other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.**
+
+# CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3
+
+Undersigned counsel has conferred with Defendant's counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion, and has been unable to do so, as Defendant's counsel has advised that Defendant opposes this motion.
+
+Dated: April 27, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: s/ Smart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) ssm@sexabuseattorney.com Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com Jessica D. Arbour (FL Bar No. 67885) iarbour@sexabuseattorney.com MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877
+
+### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I hereby certify that on April 27, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+/s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein
+
+## SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. iaoldberger@agwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bciclaw.com
+
+James bedwards@rra-law.com
+
+Isidro Manuel isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack jph@searcylaw.com U
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike MPike@bciclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassello@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawverwillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
+
+/s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749139/EFTA02749139.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749139/EFTA02749139.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f63bb0df90fd40fc17a7d3a0c46f86b0a63366bd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749139/EFTA02749139.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,432 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749139.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 8,
+ "chars": 10580,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.21,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 205.02,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 406.3231201171875,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 406.3231201171875,
+ 127.18353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 205.02,
+ 127.18353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 4's MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER \nAS TO THE DEPOSITIONS OF CERTAIN NON-PARTY WITNESSES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 112.608,
+ 401.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 500.052734375,
+ 401.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 500.052734375,
+ 430.56353759765625
+ ],
+ [
+ 112.608,
+ 430.56353759765625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 129.744,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 483.1547546386719,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 483.1547546386719,
+ 86.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 129.744,
+ 86.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 227.052,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 385.39947509765625,
+ 85.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 227.052,
+ 85.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST \nDOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN \nUnited States District Court, Southern District of Florida",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 156.67200000000003,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 156.67200000000003,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 54
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 41
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749139"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749147/EFTA02749147.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749147/EFTA02749147.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83e2dfe6f1abd642a100d095dda92cd4462190e1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749147/EFTA02749147.md
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA [REDACTED]
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+**ORDER**
+
+**THIS CAUSE** is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Re Contact of Third-Parties by Private Investigators Retained by Defendant (D.E. #226). For the following reasons, said Motion is denied.
+
+In this case, which has been consolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when the girls in question were approximately 16 years of age. As part of this scheme, Epstein, with the help of his assistant [REDACTED], allegedly lured economically disadvantaged minor girls to his homes in Palm beach, New York and St. [REDACTED], with the promise of money in
+
+"A"
+
+exchange for a massage. Epstein purportedly transformed the massage into a sexual assault. The three-count Complaint alleges sexual assault and battery (Count I), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count II), and, coercion and enticement to sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 (Count III).
+
+In an effort to mount a defense to the claims asserted against him in this case, Epstein has employed private investigators to contact third-parties believed familiar with any of the Plaintiffs herein and obtain background information about them that may prove helpful to his defense. By the Instant Motion, Plaintiffs seek an order that would prevent Epstein from continuing in this fashion by ordering that Epstein's attorneys and investigators "(I) ...cease making ex parte contacts with non-parties identified in plaintiffs' discovery responses... .(ii) ... cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties found during the course of discovery or investigation who know the plaintiff or live in her community, ... .[and] (iii) ... cease making ex parte contacts with nonparties who otherwise know one of the plaintiffs personally but who are unaware that she is an alleged victim of childhood sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein." Plaintiffs' Mtn., pp.5-6. According to Epstein, "Plaintiffs' have several preexisting and diagnosed conditions for which they now attempt to pawn off on Epstein in an effort to increase their damages,"' and granting Plaintiff's request to disallow investigators from contacting these third parties "would violate Epstein's due process rights to defend himself, and would further not allow Epstein afull opportunity to confront the
+
+ x27; Epstein's Resp. (D.E. #262), p.6
+
+Plaintiffs that have made allegations against him with the necessary material to properly cross-examine them at trial."2
+
+A Protective Order issued pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) is based on the standard of "good cause," which calls for a "sound basis or legitimate need" to limit discovery of the subject information. In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987). The burden is on the party seeking the protective order to demonstrate good cause for its issuance. See v. Gen. Motors Coro., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); In re Agent Orange Products Liability Litigation, 821 F.2d 139, 145 (2d Cir. 1987); 19'hStreet Baptist Church v. St. Peters Episcopal Church, 190 F.R.D. 345, 348 (E.D. Penn. 2000). The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating good cause for a protective order to issue.
+
+The Court agrees with Epstein in this instance and finds that limiting Epstein's investigation of the claims asserted against him in the manner suggested strips from Epstein the ability to mount a defense and, as such, would violate Epstein's Sixth Amendment Right to confront witnesses, and the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. As Epstein correctly observes, the rules of discovery contemplate the hiring of investigators and, assuming certain parameters are met, also protect the information obtained thereby as work-product. See Alachua Gen'l Hosp.. Inc. v. Zimmer USA. Inc., 403 So.2d 1087 (Fla. V' DCA 1981); In re Faro Technologies Securities Litigation, 2008 WL 205318 (M.D. Fla. 2008); Fed. R. Civ.
+
+2 1.g. at 9.
+
+P. 26(b)(3)(B). To restrict Epstein in the manner described would result in Epstein having to rely only on those "handpicked" witnesses disclosed by Plaintiffs in discovery, and would thereby prejudice Epstein in mounting his defense to the claims raised against him.
+
+The Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases are seeking millions of dollars in personal injury damages for, among other things, "physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, [and] invasion of her privacy?
+
+'To combat these claims Epstein will have to bring forth evidence to disprove and/or find information that diminishes Plaintiffs' damage claims. This is his right. The Record in this case is clear that the childhood of many of the Plaintiffs was marred by instances of abuse and neglect, which in turn may have resulted, in whole or in part, in the damages claimed by Plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, where Plaintiff is seeking millions of dollars in personal injury damages for physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, and the like, afull investigation by private investigators hired by Epstein and/or his attorneys into Plaintiffs' background, including Plaintiffs' past and present psychological, familial and social histories is reasonable and shall not be denied.4
+
+3 Plaintiff, First Am. Compl., Counts l-XXX.
+
+4 The Court notes that in reaching the within conclusion, review and consideration was made of the various declarations filed by Plaintiffs in support of
+
+In accordance with the above and foregoing, it is hereby
+
+ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Re Contact
+
+of Third-Parties by Private Investigators Retained by Defendant (D.E. #226) is DENIED.
+
+SeereirieW ts; DONE AND ORDERED this August t5 2009, in =. at West Palm Beach,
+
+Florida.
+
+LINNEA R. JO ON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
+
+CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record
+
+their claim that Epstein's investigators were acting in ways which were harassing, humiliating to Plaintiffs and/or otherwise designed to intimidate and finds said allegations without foundation.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749147/EFTA02749147.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749147/EFTA02749147.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6d426d24e0dae87006cccd486c3b8de1acac45c8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749147/EFTA02749147.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749147.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 5,
+ "chars": 6892,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 5.85,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_111.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 204.40800000000002,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 397.79999999999995,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 397.79999999999995,
+ 125.55000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 204.40800000000002,
+ 125.55000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 282.744,
+ 395.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 326.196,
+ 395.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 326.196,
+ 409.04999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 282.744,
+ 409.04999999999995
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 315
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 332
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 303
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749147"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749147/_page_0_Picture_111.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749147/_page_0_Picture_111.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd9bc214ff5fa8ff5259d26919bb7d84a00962ea
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749147/_page_0_Picture_111.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:f171ad16b21334c740deed273af121aa13e08937575e876c331db8b261b19bf0
+size 8736
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749152/EFTA02749152.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749152/EFTA02749152.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..56e61d673d8c3ecad3c1fbc7e0bbc57953221de9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749152/EFTA02749152.md
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+**UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA**
+
+**CASE NO: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON**
+
+**JANE DOE NO. 2,**
+
+**Plaintiff,**
+
+**vs.**
+
+**JEFFREY EPSTEIN,**
+
+**Defendant.**
+
+Related cases:
+
+**08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092**
+
+**ORDER**
+
+**THIS CAUSE** is before the Court on Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoview's, Motion for Protective Order (D.E. #402). For the following reasons, Third Party Witness Zinoview's Motion for Protective Order is denied.
+
+By this Motion Third Party Witness Zinoview, who has been employed by Defendant Epstein as a driver and bodyguard since 2005, seeks an order preventing the taking of his deposition on the basis that his employment with Epstein post-dates the facts giving rise to these cases and that "at not time has he discussed with Mr. Epstein any issues involving Mr. Epstein's criminal case or any the cases or issues involved with civil Plaintiffs."
+
+" B "
+
+Zinoview's Mtn., p.1-3.
+
+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. Barnett Bank of Poly County, 876 F.2d 89, 91 (11th Cir. 1989). An order completely prohibiting a deposition from going forward, however, is rare, and only resorted to in extraordinary circumstances. Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (5' Cir. 1979)(noting that it is very unusual for trial court to prohibit the taking of a deposition altogether, and absent extraordinary circumstances, such order would likely be in error)• Jennings v. Family Management, 201 F.R.D. 272 (D.D.C. 2001)(stating that a "complete prohibition of a deposition is an extraordinary measure which should be resorted to only in rare occasions."). In this instance the Court agrees with Plaintiff that neither Zinoview's conclusory affidavit in which he denies any knowledge of the facts giving rise to these cases, nor his Motion provide anything even approaching the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to justify a complete prohibition of his deposition. Nor, does the Court find any basis to limit the questions that may be asked Zinoview at deposition. At the deposition Zinoview's counsel is free to invoke any privileges afforded him by the applicable procedural rules. In accordance with the above and foregoing, it is hereby
+
+ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoview's, Motion for Protective Order (D.E. #402) is DENIED.
+
+DONE AND ORDERED this December 3rd, 2009, in at West Palm
+
+Beach, Florida.
+
+0 47 LINNEA R. JO ON UNITED STA ES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
+
+CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record
+
+•
+
+S
+
+•
+
+•
+
+•
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749152/EFTA02749152.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749152/EFTA02749152.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b7ad8a21abf3ab9655048d797554547e93806f47
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749152/EFTA02749152.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749152.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 2734,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 5.03,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 208.07999999999998,
+ 110.97
+ ],
+ [
+ 403.9200000000001,
+ 110.97
+ ],
+ [
+ 403.9200000000001,
+ 138.51
+ ],
+ [
+ 208.07999999999998,
+ 138.51
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 288.864,
+ 454.4100000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 334.15200000000004,
+ 454.4100000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 334.15200000000004,
+ 468.18
+ ],
+ [
+ 288.864,
+ 468.18
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 190
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 304
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749152"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749155/EFTA02749155.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749155/EFTA02749155.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a29131ea3ed3d6e44cdaf7953e4dbe8eb9c03ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749155/EFTA02749155.md
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ 1
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## OMNIBUS ORDER
+
+THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Defendant Epstein's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 to Respond to Defendant's First Request to Produce and to Overrule Objections and For an Award of Defendant's Reasonable Expenses (D.E. #67); and (2) Defendant Epstein's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 to Respond to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and to Overrule Objections and For an Award of Defendant's Reasonable Expenses (D.E. #68). For the following reasons, except for Defendant's request for fees and costs, both motions are granted.
+
+"
+
+In this case, which has been consolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when the girls in question were approximately 16 years of age. As part of this scheme, Epstein, with the help of his assistant , allegedly lured economically disadvantaged minor girls to his homes in Palm beach, New York and St. with the promise of money in exchange for a massage. Epstein purportedly transformed the massage into a sexual assault. The three-count Complaint alleges sexual assault and battery (Count I), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count II), and, coercion and enticement to sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 (Count III).
+
+In an effort to mount a defense to the claims asserted against him in this case, Epstein has propounded several interrogatory and production requests seeking, among other information, income information and past sexual act information from the Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 as well as from the other Plaintiffs in this case. Plaintiffs have objected arguing the requests, in whole or in part, seek information that is irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence, overly broad, unduly burdensome, propounded only for purposes of harassment, or are otherwise impermissibly vague as framed. Each of the requests at issue and the respective objections that go along with them shall be addressed in turn. The Court notes that the ruling issued herein with respect to D.E. #s 67 and 68 applies equally to those identical motions to compel filed in Case Nos. 08-80893, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993 and 08-80811.
+
+First, however, a word about the general standard applicable to issues of discovery
+
+in federal court. Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow any party to serve on any other party interrogatories, requests to produce, inspect and copy, test or sample any documents or tangible things which constitute or contain matters within the scope of Federal Rule Civil Procedure 26(b). The scope of discovery under Rule 26(b) is broad: "[plates may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claim or defense of any party involved in the pending action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id.; see also Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-508 (1947); Famsworth v. Proctor and Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985)(the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "strongly favor full discovery whenever possible"); Canal Authority v. Froehlke, 81 F.R.D. 609, 611 (M.D. Fla. 1979). Thus, under Rule 26, relevancy is "construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders,437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). Discovery is not limited to the issues raised by the pleadings because "discovery itself is designed to help define and clarify the issues." Id. at 352. In short, information can be relevant and therefore discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Dunbar v. United States, 502 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1974).
+
+While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). Indeed the 2000 Amendment to Rule 26 has effectively limited the scope of discoverable information to those matters which are relevant to a claim or defense in the lawsuit. Dellacasa, LLC v.
+
+John Moriarty & Ass. Of Florida, Inc., 2007 WL 4117261 at \*3 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Courts have long held that "[w]hile the standard of relevancy [in discovery] is a liberal one, it is not so liberal as to allow a party to 'roam in the shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matter which does not presently appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so.' " Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (C.A. D.C. 1997)(quoting Broadway and Ninety Sixth Street Realty Co. v. Loew's Inc., 21 F.R.D. 347, 352 (S.D. N.Y. 1958)); Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & Transp., Inc., 2007 W.L. 1119206 at \*1 (S.D. Fla. 2007).
+
+Under Fed. R. Civ. P., 26(b)(1) a court may limit discovery of relevant material if it determines the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicitive, or obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefits The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000) ("The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objectedto information is unnecessary, unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome."); Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001)("the burden of showing that the requested information is not relevant to the issues in the case is on the party resisting discovery")(citation omitted); Gober v. City of Leesberq,197 F.R.D. 519, 521 (M.D. Fla. 2000)("The party resisting production of information bears the burden of establishing lack of relevancy or undue burden in supplying the requested information"). To meet this burden, the party resisting discovery must demonstrate specifically how the objected-to request is unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985); Rossbach, 128 F.Supp.2d at 1353. Thus, to even merit consideration, "an objection must show specifically how a discovery request is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, by submitting evidence or offering evidence which reveals the nature of the burden." Coker v. IIII & Co., 1777 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 1998)Once the resisting party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the moving party to show the information is relevant and necessary. Gober, 197 F.R.D. at 521; see also Hunter's Ridge Goff Co. Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 233 F.R.D. 678, 680 (M.D. Fla. 2006).
+
+Production Request No. 1 seeks all individual and/or joint income tax returns and supporting documentation including W-2 and 1099 forms for 2002-2007, as well as all records or documentation relative to the Plaintiff's earnings for the current year. Plaintiff objects to the request as "overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Without waiving the above objections, Plaintiff has provided Epstein with a copy of her 2006 and 2007 1040 forms.
+
+The Court finds the information sought by Defendant in Request No. 1 directly relevant to the claims and defenses raised herein and in no way overly broad or unduly burdensome as claimed. Like the rest of the Plaintiffs in these consolidated actions, the Plaintiff in this case, Jane Doe 2, is seeking millions of dollars in personal injury damages for, among other things, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, and invasion of her privacy. These damages stem from allegations relating to her claims of sexual assault, sexual battery, coercion and enticement to sexual activity. The sought after tax returns and supporting information will provide direct evidence as to Plaintiff's claimed damages, both with regard to her loss of earning capacity damage claim as well as her emotional psychological/mental health type damage claims.
+
+Furthermore, the six-year time period of 2002-2007 is reasonable on its face and not in any way overly broad or unduly burdensome as claimed, considering that Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint alleges the alleged sexual abuse and exploitation occurred in 2004-2005. The two-year period on either side of the dates the abuse is alleged to occur will allow Defendant to show Plaintiffs employment and earning history, as well as provide evidence as to how Plaintiff has been able to function in her daily life before, during and after the alleged incident. Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections to Production Request No. 1 are denied and Defendant's Motion to Compel as it relates to Production Request No. 1 is granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to produce any and all documents responsive to the subject request within ten (10) days from the date hereof. The Court notes, however, in light of the inherent privacy concerns which attach to income tax returns, the information provided shall be subject to a mutually agreeable protective order which shall ensure the information provided shall not be disseminated to anyone other than the parties to this action or their attomeys and/or agents and only for purposes of this case.
+
+The remainder of the contested Production Requests (10, 11, 17, and 18) and the entirety of the contested Interrogatory Requests (18, 19, 20, and 21), being similar in nature, are accorded a nearly identical analysis and shall therefore be discussed together. Production Requests 10, 11, 17 and 18 relate to past sexual act information and seek all photos, movies, dvds, and videotapes in which Plaintiffs performed sexual acts or simulated sexual acts, whether in exchange for money or other consideration (Request 11), or not (Request 10), as well as all documents reflecting the names and addresses of other individuals with whom Plaintiffs have engaged in sexual activity from January 1, 2000- December 31, 2005 (Request 17) and from January 1, 2006-November 30, 2008 (Request 18). Plaintiffs asserted the identical objections to each of these requests arguing the requests are "harassing and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence," are "outrageous, offensive and...apparently posed for the purpose of intimidating the Plaintiff," inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 412, and "[wjithout waiving this objection, none to Plaintiff's knowledge."
+
+As a preliminary matter the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs response in which she begins by setting forth objections followed by the statement, lwjithout waiving this objection, none to Plaintiffs knowledge," is evasive. Defendant is entitled to know whether or not such items exist, and if so whether such items are in the care, custody or control of Plaintiff or someone other than Plaintiff. As for Plaintiff's concerns that to the extent any such recordings of the Plaintiff engaged in sexual or simulated sexual activity since the year 2000 did exist, such recordings would be unlawful for anyone to possess, particularly a registered sex offender such as Epstein, the Court is sensitive to same and to the extent any such recordings are ordered to be tumed over, the Court specifically orders these recordings be for "attorney's eyes" only and not be given or otherwise shown to Defendant Epstein.
+
+Interrogatories 18, 19, 20 and 21 also relate to past sexual act information and seek the names, addresses and phone numbers of all males, excluding Epstein, with whom Plaintiff has had sexual activity from the age of 10 up through the present (Interrogatory 18), whom Plaintiff has claimed committed sexual assault or battery on her from the age of 10 up through the present (Interrogatory 19), whom Plaintiff has claimed committed lewd
+
+or lascivious conduct to her from the age of 10 up through the present (Interrogatory 20), and whom Plaintiff has claimed committed lewd or lascivious exhibition to her from the age of 10 and up through the present (Interrogatory 21), and as to each describe the nature of the act or conduct, the date(s), and whether Plaintiff received money or other consideration from that person. Plaintiff asserted the identical objections as to each, namely, that the interrogatories are "vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Moreover, [these interrogatories are] outrageous, offensive and apparently posed for the purpose of intimidating the victim. Fed. R. Evid. 412 makes any answer to [these interrogatories] inadmissible, and nothing in the answer could plausibly lead to discovery of admissible evidence."
+
+The primary thrust of Plaintiffs objection is her contention that the information sought is not discoverable in that it is not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 412, which governs the admissibility of a victim's sexual activity. Fed. R. Evid. 412 provides that a victim's past sexual behavior is irrelevant to the credibility of the victim's testimony, and that a victim's prior and subsequent sexual activity with third parties has no bearing on the issue of whether the victim consented to or complied with the sexual acts charged. Putting aside for the moment the fact the information sought is not being sought for the purposes of establishing the victim's consent or otherwise undermining her credibility, the fact remains Rule 412 is an evidentiary rule that while under some circumstances may be held to prevent mere discovery, is not applicable in this instance, where Plaintiff has placed her past sexual history at issue. Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 51h DCA 1997), rev. denied,719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998)(allowing discovery of plaintiff's employment history which included prostitution, employment records, electronic recording of the conduct which
+
+was the subject of the complaint, and a description of plaintiff's damages). See also US v. Bear Stops, 997 F.2d 451 (811 Cir. 1993)(defendant entitled to admission of evidence relating to a victim's (a six-year old boy) sexual assault by 3 older boys to establish alternative explanation for why victim exhibited behavioral manifestations of a sexually abused child).
+
+Under the circumstances of this case, where Plaintiff has alleged that Epstein exposed himself to her, `sexually assaulted her," "committed willful acts of child sexual abuse" on her, which resulted in "mental or sexual injury," and "caused" or is likely to cause [Plaintiffs] mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired," 2d Am. Comp., ¶25, Plaintiff has put the nature of her claimed injuries and source and extent of her damages at issue, such that Epstein is entitled to discover evidence which would show the nature of Plaintiff's relationship with males, whether she has suffered other acts of sexual misconduct as alleged in her Complaint, and whether she suffered injury and/or damages as a result of the other claimed sexual misconduct with males.
+
+In support of her position that Rule 412 prevents the discovery of Plaintiff's sexual activities, Plaintiff cites to a string of employment related cases, Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996); Herron v. Eastern Industries, Inc., 2007 WL 2781211 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2007); Gibbons v. Food Lion, Inc., 1999 WL 33226474 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 1999); P.J. Herchenroeder v. John Univ. Applied Physical Lab, 171 F.R.D. 179 (D. Mad. 1997); v. Zabihi, 166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996); and Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp., 1996 WL 397563 (D. Kan 1996). Plaintiff's reliance on these cases in support of her position, however, is misplaced in that each of these cases deal specifically with employer liability for workplace sexual harassment claims, a factual scenario not present in this case.
+
+Here, the requests at issue go to the very heart of Plaintiff's damage claims, requesting not only general information relating to Plaintiffs sexual history, but inquiring as to specific instances wherein Plaintiff received compensation or consideration for sex acts, claim other males sexually assaulted, battered, or abused her, and/or claim other males committed lewd or lascivious acts on her. As a global matter, Plaintiffs clearly and unequivocally place their sexual history in issue by their allegations that Epstein's actions in this case has negatively affected their relationships by, among other things, "distrust in men," "sexual intimacy problems," "diminished trust," "social problems," "problems in personal relationships," "feelings of stress around men," "premature teenage pregnancy," "antisocial behaviors," and "hyper-sexuality and promiscuity." See Composite Exh. "A" attached to Def's Reply. Considering these allegations, there simply can be no question that Epstein is entitled to know whether Plaintiffs were molested or the subject of other "sexual activity" or "lewd and lascivious conduct" in order to determine whether there is an alternative basis for the psychological disorders Plaintiffs claim to have sustained, whether Plaintiffs engaged in prostitution or other similar type acts and how certain acts alleged in the Complaint materially affected Plaintiffs' relationships with others or how those acts did not have such an affect on those relationships and/or whether Plaintiffs suffered from the alleged emotional and psychological disorders as a result of other sexual acts prior to the acts alleged in the Complaint. To deny Epstein this discovery, would be tantamount to barring him from mounting a defense.
+
+The Court also rejects Plaintiff's contention that inquiring of instances from the age of 10 is unreasonable. In the instant case, Plaintiffs allege they were between the ages of
+
+13 and 16 at the time of the alleged contacts with Epstein. As such, it is not unreasonable to fix the inquiry start date at age10. All of the Plaintiffs in the Epstein related matters have alleged that Epstein's actions caused their damages.
+
+It stands to reason that a 10 year old child who had a sexual experience of one kind or another could have been profoundly psychologically affected by this experience, and this experience may or may not be relevant to gauging the extent of any damages caused by a later sexual encounter. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that fixing 10 years old as the start date to any inquiry is not overbroad as claimed, but under the circumstances reasonable and justifiable.
+
+Accordingly, the Court rejects Plaintiffs' objections to Production Requests 10, 11, 17, and 18 and to Interrogatory Requests 18, 19, 20, and 21, and Defendant's Motions as they relate to these requests are granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to fully and completely respond to the subject requests within fifteen (15) days from the date hereof. The Court notes, however, in light of the highly personal and sensitive nature of the information sought by these Motions, that the information provided shall be subject to amutually agreeable protective order which shall ensure the information provided shall not be disseminated to anyone other than the parties to this action or to their attorneys and/or agents and only for purposes of this case. In this regard, the attorneys for the parties to this matter shall confer and reach agreement on the terms of such protective order and file same with the Court for signature within five (5) days from the date hereof. In accordance with the above and foregoing, it is hereby
+
+ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
+
+- (1) Defendant Epstein's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 to Respond to
+
+Defendant's First Request to Produce and to Overrule Objections and For an Award of Defendant's Reasonable Expenses (D.E. #67) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. As a substantive matter, the Motion is granted subject to the terms and conditions noted earlier herein. Defendant's request for fees and costs is denied; and
+
+(2) Defendant Epstein's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 to Respond to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and to Overrule Objections and For an Award of Defendant's Reasonable Expenses (D.E. #68) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. As a substantive matter, the Motion is granted subject to the terms and conditions noted earlier herein. Defendant's request for fees and costs is denied.
+
+DONE AND ORDERED this October 28, 2009, ine, at West Palm Beach, Florida.
+
+> e-r r o 47.5O7t\_--- ----' LINNEA R. JO N UNITED STATE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
+
+CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749155/EFTA02749155.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749155/EFTA02749155.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0db37b276b7879f9e8d2ab2a5efb4705faea77df
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749155/EFTA02749155.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,491 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749155.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 12,
+ "chars": 21373,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.77,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA \nCASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ 1",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 190.94400000000002,
+ 93.96000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 433.81793212890625,
+ 93.96000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 433.81793212890625,
+ 147.05352783203125
+ ],
+ [
+ 190.94400000000002,
+ 147.05352783203125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "OMNIBUS ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 259.488,
+ 458.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 364.2003479003906,
+ 458.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 364.2003479003906,
+ 473.68353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 259.488,
+ 473.68353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 64
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 64
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 69
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 365
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749155"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749167/EFTA02749167.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749167/EFTA02749167.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b48b749297674e353bb377f327b26d494292e5ca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749167/EFTA02749167.md
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+Jane Doe 4/4
+
+v.
+
+Jeffrey Epstein
+
+## AFFIDAVIT OP RICHARD Ca M.D.
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA
+
+COUNTY OF SEMINOLE
+
+On this day personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, Richard M.D., who, being by me first duly sworn under oath deposes and says:
+
+1. My name is Richard M.D. I am over the age of majority, and make this affidavit and declaration upon the basis of personal knowledge of the factual matters contained herein.
+
+2. I have maintained a private practice in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry since 19%.
+
+3. I, also, currently serve as a Courtesy Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Florida, College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida; Affiliate Professor, Dept of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, University of South Florida; and Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Medical Education, University of Central Florida College Medicine.
+
+4. I received my undergraduate degree from the Johns University and
+
+medical degree from the University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida.
+
+5. I served as aLieutenant Commander in the United States Navy, where I researched and evaluated biological and neurochemical factors associated with the onset of psychiatric disorders and served as a representative to the Joint Services Task Force planning Operation Homecoming, the return of POW's from Vietnam.
+
+6. I have previously served as an assistant clinical professor at the University of South Florida College of Medicine, directed one of the ten model mental health centers in the United States, and served as a medical consultant to the Kennedy Space Center.
+
+7. I am aformer member of the academic faculty at the University of Texas, in Houston, Texas where I served as Assistant Professor and then Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Internal Medicine, Director of Clinical Research, Director of Residency Training, Chief of the Consultation/Liaison Service, and Chief Psychiatrist at the M.D. Cancer Hospital in Houston.
+
+8. I, also, have served as aProfessor of Internal Medicine and Psychiatry at the Medical College of Wisconsin where Iwas appointed Chief of Psychiatry at the Milwaukee County and Froedtert Hospitals.
+
+9. In addition, I have served as a Professor of Psychiatry and Internal Medicine and Associate at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Memphis.
+
+10. The amended complaint filed by Jane Doe 14 against Jeffrey Epstein makes
+
+sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a minor and seek damages in excess of \$50 million. Jane Doe if4 alleges confusion, shame, humiliation, embarrassment and severe psychological and emotional injuries. It is further alleged that she suffered, and will continue to suffer, severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological, and emotional damages.
+
+11. She alleges the intentional infliction of emotional distress and that Mr. Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress, severe mental anguish and pain.
+
+12. She further alleges that she has suffered personal injury including mental, psychological and emotional damage.
+
+13. Plaintiffs counsel has retained an expert witness, Dr. Kliman of the Psychological Trauma Center, adivision of Preventive Psychiatry Associates Medical Group, Inc., of San Francisco, California, of which Gilbert W. Kliman, MD, is the medical director. Dr. 'Chau:int& initial records indicate the following concerning Jane Doe \$4.
+
+14. Plaintiff reports a history of alcohol use and an ex-boyfriend who drank alcohol and used pills that were "a form of oxycodine [gel aform of heroine [sic)." (Page 18, tape 1)
+
+15. Plaintiff reports obtaining a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend, stating that he would spit in her face, push her, and was abusive. (Page 20, tape 1)
+
+16. Plaintiff reports talking with two psychiatrists at age 16 or 17 due to family
+
+issues and boyfriend issues. (Pages 2 and 3, tape 3). In the tapes, she makes no mention of telling the psychiatrists of her alleged encounters with Epstein. Moreover, while Plaintiff denies recruiting other girls, on page 24 of the Palm Beach Police Report, Plaintiff said she left anote for Epstein that indicated "for a good time call [Plaintiff] and (friend]" and left the girls' phone numbers.
+
+17. Plaintiff noted that while in high school a friend, Chris, died in a motor vehicle accident, that she was in shock from his death, and that she got over it after about] 12/ to 2 years, but that it still bothers her. (Page 4, GICCorttemp notes)
+
+18. Plaintiff noted that adose friend, Ten, died in amotor vehicle accident and that she was in. shock for two months. (Page 4, UK Contemp notes)
+
+19. Plaintiff reported, "I probably went there over 50 times." (Page 3, tape 4)
+
+20. Plaintiff was arrested at age 17 for DUI on 3/09/05. (Police Offense Report)
+
+21. On 10/31/04, fight occurred between plaintiff and Preston.. in back of cab. Plaintiff (age 17) had been drinking. Police were called for theft of cab fare. Upon arriving at residence, police found plaintiff in home with no shirt on. Plaintiff refused to cooperate with police and threatened to kill hersel£\_was arrested for violation of protective order. (Police Offense Report)
+
+22. On 2/28/02, plaintiff was charged with shoplifting bras from Burdines and was issued a juvenile referral form. (Police Offense Report)
+
+23. On 9/21/04, a protective order was filed against Preston after an incident on 9/20/04 in which he accused her of cheating on him. He then began choking her, threw her against a wall, and yelled at plaintiff. He dumped beer on her, threw dgarettes in her face, and slammed her into the ground. On a previous incidentin August 2004, plaintiff reported they agued and Mr. grabbed her by her arms and threw her to the ground outside her house. Plaintiff noted she was in fear because he has a violent history and has verbally threatened her friends, family and herself. (Petition for Injunction for Protection)
+
+24. All of the above show that this plaintiff came from an unstable and disturbed home, had been subject to previous physical and sexual abuse, was fearful, isolated, and had had suicidal ideation prior to meeting Mr. Epstein. Por further elaboration of her history and background, access to all available records is crucial if one is to fully understand the impact of any of these events on her subsequent behavior and proportion the impact of specific events, If any, or her current and future level of function.
+
+25. In Dr. Minutes initial replenishment retainer agreement and fee schedule (date 7/18/08), in a heading entitled "Regarding Full Disclosure," Dr. Klimart notes that prior to deposition, counsel will make every effort necessary to provide experts with information requested by the experts including: 1) alist of all depositions, statements, declarations, and motions In the case, 2) a copy of any requested items, and 3) most importantly, 41181Crifili =kW. clinical. achsal, and meaLcXecords known to the attorney in the case.
+
+26. Dr. Kliman notes on page 8 of his contract opinion formation that he will not form opinions, give reports, or testify in certain circumstances. These include circumstances where he has reason to believe a retaining attorney has "availableimportant and relevant documentswhich itie deliberatelywithheld from ma." "We define such as documents in possession of retaining attorney, which Avg have /wagged nay thg 3Yghave stated would ordiniugY kRNLI a Medical =Jake tot glhtilil pia thetwica galcatning, whichgur input j&=maw: We request the same.
+
+27. It is critical for an IME examiner to be able to make a cogent assessment of any plaintiff and to understand their medical, social, academic, psychological and ' psychiatric condition/state prior to any act of alleged victimization. There are a number of variables that combine to determine the effects of such alleged victimization; including the type and character of the alleged assault and key victim variables such as demographics; psychological reactions at the time of the trauma; previous psychiatric or psychological history, history of previous victimization; current or previous psychological difficulties; general personality dynamics and coping style; sociocultural factors such as drug use/abuse; poverty; social inequity and/or inadequate social support any previous history of abuse -within or outside the family; whether individuals were abused by strangers, acquaintances or family members; and whether there was any history of indiscriminate behavior that may have placed them at increased risk. It is important to know if there had been previous sexual conduct, contact with police or welfare agencies, alcohol or drug use/abuse, voluntary sexual activity, contraceptive use, genital infections, or apparent indifference to previous abuse.
+
+28. It is also essential to understand the plaintiffs level of emotional support whether any significant psychiatric illnesses were present, whether they were taking any medications (prescribed or non-prescribed), whether there had been previous suicide attempts, thoughts, plans, etc.
+
+29. Knowledge of plaintiffs relationships to her family and familial factors, including social disadvantage, family instability, impaired parent/child relationship, and parental adjustment difficulties is also critical.
+
+30. It is, therefore, crucial that the independent medical examiner has available to him afull and complete record that includes medical, previous legal, social, criminal, academic, psychological and psychiatric records/data; psychological tests; laboratory tests; and clinical, hospital, physician records.
+
+31. These, in essence, are the same or similar records that plaintiffs expert witness (Dr. KLbnan) feels are essential for him to do an appropriate evaluation. To obtain the necessary information, it will be necessary to identify the plaintiff by name. Such
+
+Aug 04 09 04:55p Richard C. Hall, MD Of 22 407-322-8169 P.8
+Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 8 of 8
+
+identification will not humiliate the plaintiff since all we are requesting is pertinent information as noted above relative to their past medical and psychiatric histories and conduct. We would concur and request of the court that the same and/or similar information be made available to us to conduct our examination.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+*Richard C.W. Hall ms*
+Richard C. W. [REDACTED], MD
+
+Courtesy Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Florida, College of Medicine
+Affiliate Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, University of South Florida
+Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Medical Education, University of Central Florida College of
+Medicine
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA
+COUNTY OF SEMINOLE
+
+BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared **RICHARD C.W.**
+[REDACTED], M.D., who is ( ✓ ) personally known to me or ( ) who has produced
+\_\_\_\_\_ as identification, and who did take an oath, deposes and says that
+the attached Affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
+
+SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this 4th day of August, 2009.
+
+
+
+*Marcia J. Chapman*
+Notary Public
+Printed Name: Marcia J. Chapman
+My Commission Expires:
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749167/EFTA02749167.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749167/EFTA02749167.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ae964c3a5c9babc73081d22fe2e836ca5170c5d0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749167/EFTA02749167.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,330 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749167.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 8,
+ "chars": 11391,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 7.12,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_7_Picture_332.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "AFFIDAVIT OP RICHARD Ca M.D.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 211.75199999999995,
+ 191.96999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.4864501953125,
+ 191.96999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.4864501953125,
+ 208.17000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 211.75199999999995,
+ 208.17000000000002
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 222
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 304
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 303
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 335
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 343
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 322
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 298
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 279
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749167"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749167/_page_7_Picture_332.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749167/_page_7_Picture_332.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..279c5f7d6fba5078fc040b91bae6769fc634bee1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749167/_page_7_Picture_332.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:500c01f1ee218306e8b5e0219d5906533162f7819302cc8d6ed3d9af871bf028
+size 10943
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749175/EFTA02749175.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749175/EFTA02749175.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c7fe054712ab23874ab8efffd9e11cfbf3d2e8a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749175/EFTA02749175.md
@@ -0,0 +1,207 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+### Response To Plaintiff's, Jane Doe No.: 4, Motion for Protective Order (DE 534), With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein" or "Defendant"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Response In Opposition to Plaintiffs', Jane Doe's Motion for Protective Order (DE 534), With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law (the "Motion for Protective Order"). In support, Epstein states as follows:
+
+### I. Introduction & Argument
+
+1. Plaintiff and her counsel have now resurrected their collective efforts to prevent discovery relating to Plaintiff's psychological, criminal and employment histories, as well as their general backgrounds. Plaintiff unreasonably continues to delay discovery knowing full well that the court has already entered orders allowing for discovery as to third parties. Plaintiffs once again requests that this court preclude Epstein from investigating these matters through one of the most traditional methods available in the justice system, depositions.
+
+2. Epstein has been faced with several motions seeking to prevent or limit discovery with the primary goal being to send Epstein to trial with little or no discovery. Plaintiff continues to avert discovery, and now she wishes to shelter her pasts by requesting that this court enter an order broadly limiting the rules of discovery and thus preventing Epstein from deposing third parties, including two individuals that were Jane Doe 4's soccer coaches for years (i.e., Rocky Orezzoli and Bill ). Limiting such discovery would undoubtedly result in reversible error. Plaintiff claims Epstein is harassing her by way of seeking those depositions; however, such is not the case. Coaches have an identifiably close relationship with their players and, often times, their players confide in them about events which they would not address with their very own parents. As such, these two deponents are clearly relevant, and their depositions are not being set as a means of harassment. Moreover, Defendant does not intend to violate the court's order at DE 433.
+
+3. As the court knows, Plaintiffs' have several preexisting and diagnosed conditions for which they now attempt to pawn off on Epstein in an effort to increase their damages. For instance, prior to any of their alleged encounters with Epstein, certain Plaintiffs have been raped, sexually abused, molested and physically and verbally abused. Some of them have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder or obsessive compulsive disorder, and some have suicidal thoughts and/or have attempted suicide on more than one occasion. Moreover, some of the Plaintiffs have witnessed close friends or family members commit suicide. While the above incidents are nothing less than tragic, the impact of those incidents on each of the Plaintiffs must be taken into consideration
+
+with the claims they make and the damages they seek against from Epstein.
+
+4. Plaintiff has objected to all meaningful discovery, and now she seeks to halt or limit traditional discovery methods at the very time she suspects Epstein is going to learn information that may diminish or disprove her claims. In fact, the questions outlined on pages 3-4 of DE 534 are clearly relevant to Plaintiff's general background (see infra), her sexually explicit experiences including, but not limited to, events taking place at strip clubs where Plaintiff was employed. Obviously, these questions go to the heart of the Epstein's defenses, including that of consent and ability to consent.
+
+5. If this court precludes Epstein's lawyers from seeking information from third parties about the claims asserted against him by Jane Doe 4 (and others) it will undoubtedly violate Epstein's due process rights by preventing him from defending the allegations made against him and it will further open the floodgates to additional challenges from others. This would result in rewriting the rules of discovery, and the intended purpose of the rules would largely be disregarded (i.e., to obtain information necessary to prosecute and/or defend claims such that the element of unfair surprise is diminished). The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to obtain a full and accurate understanding of the true facts in order to obtain a fair and just result. United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682, 78 S.Ct. 983 (1958). This is evidenced through the intent of rule 26 disclosures.
+
+6. As this court has recognized, Defendant should not have to rely on only those "handpicked witnesses disclosed by Plaintiff'[] in discovery, and would thereby prejudice Epstein in mounting his defense to the claims raised against him. (DE 299, p.4)(Exhibit "A"). Likewise, at DE 432 (Exhibit "B"), this court denied Defendant's
+
+Motion for Protective Order seeking to prevent the deposition of Third Party witness Igor Zinoview despite the fact that Mr. Zinoview was employed by Epstein post-dates giving rise to the facts alleged in these actions. This was the case even though several affidavits were provided supporting Zinoview's Motion for Protective Order. The court found that an order completely prohibiting the deposition from going forward is rare, Salter v. Upjohn co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (51h Cir. 1979), and that Zinoview's conclusory affidavit in which he denies knowledge of the facts giving rise to these cases provide anything even approaching the rise of "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to prohibit the deposition. (DE 432). The same result should be reached here.
+
+7. The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v, Rundel 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fl. 2000) ("The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objected-to information is unnecessary, unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome."); Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001) ("the burden of showing that the requested information is not relevant to the issues in the case is on the party resisting discovery") citation omitted); Gober v. City of Leesberg, 197 F.R.D. 519, 521 (M.D. Fla. 2000)("The party resisting production of information bears the burden of establishing lack of relevancy or undue burden in supplying the requested information"). To meet this burden, the party resisting discovery must demonstrate specifically how the objected-to request is unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P.33(b)(4); Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11'h Cir. 1985); Rossbach, 128 F.Supp.2d at 1353. Thus, to even merit consideration, "an objection must show specifically how a discovery request is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, by submitting evidence or offering evidence which reveals the nature of the burden." Coker v. 1& Co.., 1777 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Plaintiff has failed to make such a showing. Therefore, her Motion for Protective Order should be denied. See g., DE 377, Exhibit "C".
+
+8. Obviously, Defendant is entitled to test Plaintiff's credibility as to her alleged involvement with Epstein, to determine the alleged effects on her as a result of any involvement with Epstein, to determine whether she ever spoke of any alleged psychological trauma with the deponents, and to determine if the deponents have any information supporting or denying Plaintiff's claim that she sustained damages as a result of their alleged involvement with Epstein. It is well settled that relevant information is discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(6)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). See Hickman v. Taylor 329 U.S. 495, 507-08 (1947); Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). In Oppenheimer, the Supreme Court discussed the concept of relevance in relation to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) and noted that:
+
+> The key phrase in this definition — "relevant to the subject matter in the pending action" — has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case. Consistent with the notice pleading system established by the Rules, discovery is not limited to issues raised by the pleadings, for discovery itself is designed to help define and clarify the issues. Nor is discovery limited to the merits of a case, for a variety of fact-oriented issues may arise during litigation that are not related to the merits.
+
+See also Carenehammer v. Alber Corp., 138 F.R.D. 594 (S.D. Fla. 1991).
+
+9. Many Plaintiffs, including Jane Doe 4, claim Epstein is the sole or
+
+substantial contributing cause of their physical, psychological and emotional damages. However, as this court is aware, Plaintiffs have experienced several incidents in their lives which affected them emotionally and psychologically. See g., Exhibit "D", Affidavit of Richard C.W. is outlining the psychological issues experienced by Jane Doe 4 as a result of incidents in her life prior to Epstein, which cannot be discounted. As such, Plaintiffs should not, once again, be able to "handpick" who Defendant deposes to refute their allegations.
+
+10. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot expect this court to limit Epstein's discovery of the claims asserted against him. To hold otherwise will negatively effect information sought, thereby prejudicing Epstein and impacting the one day he will have in court to defend these allegations.
+
+11. Furthermore, the pendency of a motion for protective order does not excuse the moving party from responding to discovery requests. Vipre Systems, LLC. v. NITV, LLC. 2007 WL 3202439 (M.D. Fla. 2007) and Sutherland v. Mesa Air Grout), Inc., 2003 WL 21402549 (S.D. Fla. 2003).
+
+# III. Conclusion and Requested Relief
+
+12. It is critical for this entire case that Epstein be able to conduct regular discovery, which includes investigating the claims Plaintiff makes against him. As Dr. ■ **stated in his affidavit, "there are a number of variables that combine to determine the effects of such alleged victimization, including the type and character of the alleged assault, and key victim variables such as demographics, psychological reactions at the time of the trauma, previous psychiatric or psychological history, previous victimization history . . . , general personality dynamics and coping style, as well as sociocultural** factors such as drug use/abuse; poverty; social inequity and/or inadequate social support; any previous history of abuse within or outside the family; whether individuals were abused by strangers, acquaintances or family members; and whether there was any history of indiscriminate behavior that may have placed them at increased risk. . . ." Id. It is also important to know about Plaintffs' ". . . previous sexual conduct, contact with police or welfare agencies, alcohol or drug use/abuse, voluntary sexual activity, contraceptive use, genital infections, or apparent indifference to previous abuse. . .whether any significant psychiatric illnesses were present, whether they were taking any medications (prescribed or non-prescribed), whether there had been previous suicide attempts, thoughts, plans, etc. . . . , and whether . . . Plaintiffs' relationships with their families and familial factors, including social disadvantage, family instability, impaired parent/child relationship, and parental adjustment difficulties [were present]" Id. It is therefore critical for Epstein to conduct a thorough discovery, which will confirm or rebut Plaintiff's" allegations. To hold otherwise would cause this court to accept Plaintiff's allegations as true without allowing Epstein to retain information to refute same.
+
+Wherefore, Epstein requests that this court deny Plaintf otion for 'tective Order, and for such other and further relief as this court
+
+I HEREBY CER on all counsel of (EMAIL) on thi Y that a true copy of the foregoing was being served this day identified o e foll 'ng Service List via electronic mail !'day of 2010.
+
+B ROBER ITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar #224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+### Certificate of Service
+
+Respectfully
+
+R • BERT D. CRITT • N, JR., ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar No. 2 •1.2
+
+rcrit@bc1claw.com
+
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar #617296
+
+mpike@bc1claw.com
+
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER &
+
+COLEMAN
+
+303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561/842-2820 Phone
+
+561/253-0164 Fax
+
+(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/.
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+
+Suite 2218
+
+Miami, FL 33160
+
+305-931-2200
+
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+
+ssmasexabuseattornev.com
+
+ahorowitz@sexabuseattornev.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs
+
+In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993,
+
+08-80994
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+
+250 Australian Avenue South
+
+Suite 1400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+
+561-659-8300
+
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+
+Brad Esq.
+
+a e, Weissing, Fistos
+
+& Le an, PL
+
+425 N. Andrews Ave.
+
+Suite #2
+
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+
+Brad(a),DatInoiustice.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.
+
+08-80893
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+
+Pro Hac Vice
+
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+
+801-585-5202
+
+801-585-6833 Fax
+
+cassello®law.utah.edu
+
+jagescga)bellsouth.net Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe
+
+Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Isidro M.Mit, Esq.
+
+Finnigan, Esq.
+
+Law Firm, P.A.
+
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561-832-7732
+
+561-832-7137 F
+
+isidrogarciaebellsoutb.net
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.
+
+08-80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749175/EFTA02749175.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749175/EFTA02749175.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6eb5c189624a5c2cd60dc70596f3edadc5c9f7fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749175/EFTA02749175.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,485 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749175.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 9,
+ "chars": 14249,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 3.3,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 197.06400000000002,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.23565673828125,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.23565673828125,
+ 100.10302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 197.06400000000002,
+ 100.10302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Response To Plaintiff's, Jane Doe No.: 4, Motion for Protective Order (DE 534), \nWith Incorporated Memorandum Of Law",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 95.47200000000001,
+ 361.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 510.6829833984375,
+ 361.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 510.6829833984375,
+ 389.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 95.47200000000001,
+ 389.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "I. Introduction & Argument",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 215.42399999999998,
+ 513.54
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.9596252441406,
+ 513.54
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.9596252441406,
+ 527.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 215.42399999999998,
+ 527.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "III. Conclusion and Requested Relief",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 489.23999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.117919921875,
+ 489.23999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.117919921875,
+ 507.35302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 507.35302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 247.24800000000005,
+ 629.3700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 360.80792236328125,
+ 629.3700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 360.80792236328125,
+ 645.7330169677734
+ ],
+ [
+ 247.24800000000005,
+ 645.7330169677734
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 245.412,
+ 338.58
+ ],
+ [
+ 361.17791748046875,
+ 338.58
+ ],
+ [
+ 361.17791748046875,
+ 356.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 245.412,
+ 356.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 69
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 60
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 118
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749175"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/EFTA02749184.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/EFTA02749184.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a3184b59e0dca13a8a52817898fda939c2b8190d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/EFTA02749184.md
@@ -0,0 +1,467 @@
+JANE DOE,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+Vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.
+
+Defendant.
+
+CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRAMIII
+
+#### Related Cases:
+
+08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80994, 08-80811, 09-80591, 09-80656, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80893,09-80469, 09-80802, 09.81092
+
+## NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION VIDEO DEPOSITION
+
+PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff, Jane Doe, will take the video deposition of:
+
+| NAME | DATE AND TIME | PLACE OF TAKING DEPOSITON |
+|--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+| Story Cowles South Olive Avenue #201S West Palm Beach, FL | May 12, 2010 @ 10:00 AM | US Legal Support 444 West Railroad Avenue Suite 300 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 835-0220 |
+
+upon oral examination before US Legal Support, Notary Public, or any other notary public or officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral examination will continue from day to day until completed. The depositions are being taken for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the Rules of Court.
+
+
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAL
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served by e-mail on April 15,
+
+2010 to: See attached service list,
+
+J. Fistos & Lehrman, PL . ndrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 524-2820 (954) 524-2822 fax brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+By: BRA Florida Bar No..
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
+
+#### SERVICE LIST
+
+Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court - Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Jooldberger aciwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcrittonobcIclaw.com
+
+Isidro Manual= isidroriarcia bellsouth.net
+
+Jack=! icitiRsearcvlaw.com
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzellOpodhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike MPike(bdclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassellø(&law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawverswIllits(&aolcom
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg riosefsberciRoodhurst.com
+
+Adam D. Horowitz ahorowItzasexabuseattomev.com
+
+Stuart S. Merrnelstein ssmrasexabuseattomev.com AO BBB (Rev. OM) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Pamk Inspection Isthmian inn Civil Action
+
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+
+for the
+
+Southern District of Florida
+
+JANE DOE
+
+Plaintiff
+
+v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+
+Defendant
+
+Civil Action No. 08-80893C1V-MARRNJOHNSO
+
+(V the action is pending in another district, state where;
+
+#### SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION
+
+To: Story Cowles, 801 South Olive Avenue, 0201S, West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+0 Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material:
+
+| Place: US Legal Support 444 West Railroad Avenue, Suite 300 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 | Date and Time: 05/12/2010 10:00 am |
+|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
+|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
+
+O Impaction of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.
+
+| Place: | Date and Time: |
+|--------|----------------|
+| | |
+
+The provisions of Fed. IL Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule 45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are attached.
+
+Date: \_\_\_04/15/.21/EL.
+
+CLERK OF COURT
+
+Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
+
+OR
+
+Attorney's signature
+
+The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) JANE DOE
+
+, who issues or requests this subpoena, are: Esq.,,i, Jaffe, WelssIng, et aL, 425 North Andrews Avenue, Sufte 2, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 I. • rad@pa to ustIce.com
+
+AO MB (Rev. Cd/09) Subpoena to produce Documents. In(:mailer,. or Objects or to Permit Inspecrica Or PleMitt\$ in a Civil Attica (Page 2)
+
+Civil Action No. 08-80893C1V-MARRNJOHNSO
+
+#### PROOF OF SERVICE
+
+Mils section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. ay. P. 45.)
+
+This subpoena for (name of Individual and Mk. Vany) was received by me on (date)
+
+O I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: . \_
+
+on (date) or
+
+O I returned the subpoena unexeculed because:
+
+Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
+
+My fees are S for travel and S for services, for a total of S 0.00
+
+Date:
+
+I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
+
+Serveres signature
+
+Printed name and ride
+
+Savers address
+
+Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
+
+**Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07)(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena.****(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions.** A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction — which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees — on a party or attorney who fails to comply.
+
+**(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.****(A) Appearance Not Required.** A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.
+
+**(B) Objections.** A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:
+
+(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.
+
+(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.
+
+**(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.****(A) When Required.** On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that:
+
+(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
+
+(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person — except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where the trial is held;
+
+(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or
+
+(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
+
+**(B) When Permitted.** To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:
+
+(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information;
+
+(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or
+
+(iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial.
+
+**(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative.** In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:
+
+(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and
+
+(ii) ensures that the subpoenad person will be reasonably compensated.
+
+**(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.****(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information.** These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:
+
+**(A) Documents.** A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
+
+**(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.** If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
+
+**(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form.** The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
+
+**(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information.** The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
+
+**(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.****(A) Information Withheld.** A person withholding subpoenad information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:
+
+(i) expressly make the claim; and
+(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
+
+**(B) Information Produced.** If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.
+
+**(e) Contempt.** The issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE. NO
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+/
+
+### AFFIDAVIT OF JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ.
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
+
+BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Jack Goldberger, Esq. having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says:
+
+- 1. 1, Jack Goldberger, hired Story Cowles on July 16, 2008 and he has worked for me since that time.
+- 2. I hired Mr. Cowles as law office assistant to be directly involved only with Mr. Epstein's case while he was serving his jail sentence at the Palm Beach County Stockade. I employed Mr. Cowles to be, among other things, a conduit for information between the attorneys (criminal and civil) and Mr. Epstein.
+- 3. I have used Mr. Cowles to transmit attorney-client and work product information and documents to Mr. Epstein and other attorneys representing Mr. Epstein with the clear
+
+
+
+understating and belief that the communications among Mr. Epstein, his attorneys and staff would be protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges.
+
+EURIEIERIELEAEBANLSAYEDiNAILOHL
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ack oldb Esq.
+
+I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Jack Goldberger known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above named person: ,ar.1(\_ , and that an oath was/was not taken.
+
+WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this day of At , , 2010.
+
+
+
+N41N M4 /E 01SI,4-d 1,'At (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO.: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+### AFFIDAVIT OF STORY COWLES
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
+
+BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Story Cowles having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says:
+
+- 1. I, Story Cowles, was hired by Jack Goldberger, Esq., July 16, 2008 and have been employed by Mr. Goldberger since that time.
+- 2. I was hired as Mr. Goldberger's law office assistant to be directly involved only with Mr. Epstein's case while he was serving his jail sentence at the Palm Beach County Stockade. I was employed to be, among other things, a conduit for information between the attorneys (criminal and civil) and Mr. Epstein.
+- 3. I did not know, nor have any knowledge of, Mr. Epstein prior to my employment with Mr. Goldberger.
+
+
+
+4. I did not know, nor have any knowledge of, prior to my employment with Mr. Goldberger.
+
+5. While I have dated and continue to date we specifically have not and do not discuss the facts of the cases against her and Mr. Epstein.
+
+6. Mr. Epstein has never discussed the claims asserted against him with me other than when his attorneys were present or when I transmitted information between Mr. Epstein and his attorneys.
+
+FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
+
+Slot C
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
+
+I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Story Cowles known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above named person: Rib.), \_Coudik... , and that an oath was/was not taken.
+
+WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this day of Ara/ , 2010.
+
+
+
+24- NAME: he, sit i ttil • ntioto,' (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO.: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/VIM
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+# AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESO.
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
+
+BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq., having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says:
+
+- 1. I, Robert Critton, and the law firm of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP represent Mr. Epstein's in the civil cases and claims asserted against him in this and related actions.
+- 2. It was and is my understanding that Story Cowles has been employed as a legal assistant for Jack Goldberger, Esq. since July 2008.
+- 3. I have used Mr. Cowles to transmit attorney-client and work product information and documents to Mr. Epstein and other attorneys representing Mr. Epstein with the clear
+
+
+
+understating and belief that the communications among Mr. Epstein, his attorneys and staff would be protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges.
+
+FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH Robert D. tton, Jr., Esq.
+
+I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Robert Critton known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above named person: , and that an oath was/was not taken.
+
+gleday of WIXNES fr S my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this finel 2010.
+
+aaa tia NT NAME: C.7255/C4 CW•ta(SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO.: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
+
+
+
+J. MICHAEL DUSAN PA" GREGORY W. COLEMAN. PA. Winn D. OPTION, JR. PA' BERNARD LEIEDEXER MARK T. LUSTIER PA JEFFREY C PEPIN MICHAEL J. PIKE HEATH MCNAT.iicien FUJVA - DAVID YAMAEA
+
+'FLORIDA WARD comm. CIVIL TPJAL IAvmx 2ADMITTED TO PPACTICI IN FLORIDA AND COLORADO
+
+> Brad, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+
+RE: Story Cowles
+
+Dear Brad:
+
+
+
+A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
+
+October 7, 2009
+
+ADLLoL0 J. BENAVENTE PAILMICAVINVISTIOATOk JESSICA CADWILL BOBBIE M. MCKENNA MPHIL ST0KEN.BARING PETTY STOKES PAMLEOALI RITA H. BUDNYR - OF COUNSEL ED Rica IVfEIIIctgm'atut
+
+I have been out of the office this week moving my home; however, I will be back in the office sometime tomorrow in an attempt to get caught up, In the meantime, I wanted to address your request to depose Story Cowles. Our office will not accept service for Mr. Cowles for the following reasons:
+
+- 1. Mr. Cowles is a paralegal working under the direction of Jack Goldberger.
+- 2. Any coordination with respect to deposing one of Mr. Goldberger's employees will need to be coordinated with his office.
+
+Also, would you please provide me with dates so that I can depose your paralegals??
+
+Cord yours,
+
+bert D. Critton, Jr.
+
+RDC/Jcc
+
+cc: Jack A. Goldberger
+
+
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+# AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESO.
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
+
+BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Michael Pike, Esq., having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says:
+
+1. I, Michael Pike, am an attorney at the law firm of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP and represent Mr. Epstein in the civil cases and claims asserted against him in this and related actions.
+
+2. In or mound October, 2009, I had telephone conferences with Spencer Kuvin, Esq. (counsel for Plaintiff, B.B., in a companion state court case) and Esq- (counsel for Jane Doe and E.W. and L.M., Plaintiffs in companion state court cases), who were seeking to depose Story Cowles.
+
+
+
+3. Mr. Kuvin and Mr. agreed that if MI was produced for deposition, they would not depose Mr. Cowles. Each was attempting to effectuate service of process onall. and also knew that Mr. Cowles is an employee of Jack Goldberger, Esq.
+
+4 Ina his end of the bargain. was produced for deposition and now Ma is reneging on
+
+FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT
+
+Mich Ike, Esq,
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
+
+I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Michael J. Pike known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above named person: , and that an oath was/was not taken.
+
+it/ WI SS...wy hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this day of 4Z,Z , 2010.
+
+INT NAME: 5/0Z ig .6/6 ((SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO.: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
+
+
+
+Jessica Cadwell
+
+From: Spencer Kuvin iskuvingeopoldkuvin.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 11:27 AM To: Michael J. Pike; Jessica Cadwell; Robert D. Critton Jr.; Connie Zaguirre Subject: RE: BB
+
+Dont waste your time with a motion. I already told Jack I would move the date. Lets pick another date. Additionally, as I told Jack, if you all will produce ne dont need to go through with this.
+
+Spencer T. Kuvin 561-515-1400 skuvineleopoldkuvin.com
+
+From: Michael 3. Pike [mailto:MPike@bcklaw.comj Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 11:24 AM To: Spencer Kuvin; Jessica Cadwell; Robert D. Critton Jr.; Connie Zaguirre Subject: BB
+
+Spencer:
+
+I'm filing a Motion for Protective Order re: Story Cowles' deposition, which you unilaterally set. Please give other dates that you can take this depo and I will check my calendar. •
+
+Michael J. Pike, Esq. Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman 303 Banyan Boulevard, Ste. 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Telephone: (561) 842-2820 Facsimile (561) 844-6929
+
+## PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
+
+The information contained in this transmission is attorney/client privileged and/or attorney work product If you are not the addressee or authorized by the addressee to receive this message, you shall not review, disclose, copy, distribute or otherwise use this message (including any attachments). If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the message (including attachments) and all copies. Thank you.
+
+
+
+IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+VS.
+
+SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually, J. , individually, and L.M.,
+
+Defendant.
+
+#### ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
+
+THIS CAUSE having come before this Court upon Defendant, L.M.'s Motion for. Protective Order, and the Court having reviewed the Motion and being fully advised of the premises, it is hereby:
+
+ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that Q. MA-777 (It is einertC01 hi iiPti-A;fr rci LA.ct, —ht -pia"... - 710 es Alai< sit, pc Le td-e- 61.40 cArt-e-tot P /A--
+
+DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Bea h, Florida, his of 2010.
+
+Copies furnished to: Brad Jack .' Sc Robert Callon, Jr. Mark Nurik Jack Goldberger
+
+,572z.e\_e\_X
+
+David . Circuit Court udge
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/EFTA02749184.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/EFTA02749184.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..37e0dfcbe5819e84900f14c616919911a21ad86c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/EFTA02749184.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1297 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 17,
+ "chars": 24124,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 25.99,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg",
+ "_page_6_Picture_14.jpeg",
+ "_page_7_Picture_7.jpeg",
+ "_page_8_Picture_14.jpeg",
+ "_page_9_Picture_9.jpeg",
+ "_page_10_Picture_14.jpeg",
+ "_page_11_Picture_8.jpeg",
+ "_page_12_Picture_1.jpeg",
+ "_page_12_Picture_17.jpeg",
+ "_page_13_Picture_14.jpeg",
+ "_page_14_Picture_9.jpeg",
+ "_page_15_Picture_13.jpeg",
+ "_page_16_Picture_15.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 205.43400000000003,
+ 102.06
+ ],
+ [
+ 392.08200000000005,
+ 102.06
+ ],
+ [
+ 392.08200000000005,
+ 127.17
+ ],
+ [
+ 205.43400000000003,
+ 127.17
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Related Cases:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 87.87,
+ 300.51
+ ],
+ [
+ 164.4468536376953,
+ 300.51
+ ],
+ [
+ 164.4468536376953,
+ 312.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 87.87,
+ 312.65999999999997
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION VIDEO DEPOSITION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 158.166,
+ 396.09000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 443.1138610839844,
+ 396.09000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 443.1138610839844,
+ 411.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 158.166,
+ 411.48
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 227.25,
+ 153.89999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 372.63226318359375,
+ 153.89999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 372.63226318359375,
+ 170.0755615234375
+ ],
+ [
+ 227.25,
+ 170.0755615234375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 263.004,
+ 147.42000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.2652893066406,
+ 147.42000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.2652893066406,
+ 162.31201171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 263.004,
+ 162.31201171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 185.43599999999998,
+ 107.73000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 420.8004150390625,
+ 107.73000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 420.8004150390625,
+ 128.40533447265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 185.43599999999998,
+ 128.40533447265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS \nOR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 140.592,
+ 234.89999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 464.5489807128906,
+ 234.89999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 464.5489807128906,
+ 260.70062255859375
+ ],
+ [
+ 140.592,
+ 260.70062255859375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PROOF OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 248.43599999999998,
+ 130.41
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.61431884765625,
+ 130.41
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.61431884765625,
+ 144.83062744140625
+ ],
+ [
+ 248.43599999999998,
+ 144.83062744140625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 161.80200000000002,
+ 121.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 440.56199999999995,
+ 121.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 440.56199999999995,
+ 132.84
+ ],
+ [
+ 161.80200000000002,
+ 132.84
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 72.72,
+ 138.51
+ ],
+ [
+ 233.91600000000003,
+ 138.51
+ ],
+ [
+ 233.91600000000003,
+ 149.04
+ ],
+ [
+ 72.72,
+ 149.04
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 80.598,
+ 213.03000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 272.09400000000005,
+ 213.03000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 272.09400000000005,
+ 222.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 80.598,
+ 222.75
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 76.962,
+ 408.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 211.49399999999997,
+ 408.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 211.49399999999997,
+ 418.77
+ ],
+ [
+ 76.962,
+ 418.77
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 304.212,
+ 138.51
+ ],
+ [
+ 447.22799999999995,
+ 138.51
+ ],
+ [
+ 447.22799999999995,
+ 148.23
+ ],
+ [
+ 304.212,
+ 148.23
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 307.848,
+ 378.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 434.502,
+ 378.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 434.502,
+ 388.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 307.848,
+ 388.79999999999995
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 189.678,
+ 74.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 401.91876220703125,
+ 74.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 401.91876220703125,
+ 103.47802734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 189.678,
+ 103.47802734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "AFFIDAVIT OF JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 171.498,
+ 366.93
+ ],
+ [
+ 420.7183532714844,
+ 366.93
+ ],
+ [
+ 420.7183532714844,
+ 382.0980224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 171.498,
+ 382.0980224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 191.75400000000002,
+ 68.85000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 403.48565673828125,
+ 68.85000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 403.48565673828125,
+ 97.1080322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 191.75400000000002,
+ 97.1080322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "AFFIDAVIT OF STORY COWLES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.799,
+ 358.83
+ ],
+ [
+ 393.3115234375,
+ 358.83
+ ],
+ [
+ 393.3115234375,
+ 373.8580322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.799,
+ 373.8580322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 196.95000000000002,
+ 87.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 395.718,
+ 87.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 395.718,
+ 116.63999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 196.95000000000002,
+ 116.63999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESO.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 172.10399999999998,
+ 359.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 432.10870361328125,
+ 359.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 432.10870361328125,
+ 377.46000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 172.10399999999998,
+ 377.46000000000004
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT O1? FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 196.95000000000002,
+ 89.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 396.93,
+ 89.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 396.93,
+ 117.44999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 196.95000000000002,
+ 117.44999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESO.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 193.92000000000002,
+ 360.45000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.08000000000004,
+ 360.45000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.08000000000004,
+ 380.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 193.92000000000002,
+ 380.7
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 66.66,
+ 490.86
+ ],
+ [
+ 361.12908935546875,
+ 490.86
+ ],
+ [
+ 361.12908935546875,
+ 507.195556640625
+ ],
+ [
+ 66.66,
+ 507.195556640625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 135.138,
+ 361.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 476.9268798828125,
+ 361.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 476.9268798828125,
+ 375.6920471191406
+ ],
+ [
+ 135.138,
+ 375.6920471191406
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 210
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 40
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 79
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 54
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 60
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 58
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 73
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 204
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 211
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 108
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 203
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 228
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 72
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 85
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749184"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..98d4c7b29c44fff594c2b00ddfd0fe3b61c663af
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:0817e083953bef6d09cd1685d5f6349d2dbfa60cbe89e22b3f6760b1068a1134
+size 7967
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_10_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_10_Picture_14.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a1ec9cc535467bae77fafae717bbabd455dbed4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_10_Picture_14.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:8e1be0f83c0b3edfa3194f3fe0aaf3d6aa593119f6dc439a7335be75c3d00241
+size 8059
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_11_Picture_8.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_11_Picture_8.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e962aa42653e6495566e79f2bb1bb466099c180
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_11_Picture_8.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:ac7d3605167b5a27720e6ab17ab0746b916018df66560a996eb877f47b1509da
+size 12017
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_12_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_12_Picture_1.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1a022954cac02d446641f14aa55f9911c670ae27
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_12_Picture_1.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:18c443985c0a67883ac889428f73b74145b418b8ef6597258f56a9b61ce0a7c6
+size 11880
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_12_Picture_17.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_12_Picture_17.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e39e55da426ba8101394de36fbc4ece774a75e7e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_12_Picture_17.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:8872cf3079b732749aa17ddd0366678eefa8f087cc7c52834653883db47f6c9e
+size 6889
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_13_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_13_Picture_14.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9f5a5965b777ee7be53725a965906c957be4fb2b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_13_Picture_14.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:bb9e9d32433b0af42f1f070271b656e13c097cf3307fb29de4ab079028302efd
+size 7987
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_14_Picture_9.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_14_Picture_9.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ee22f0ddef9e177ab1bf634feaa486ddbce13192
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_14_Picture_9.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:83f468579d011430ffcc27ab2187894fb455da05ebdcd93e03e6165a71b1f053
+size 12303
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_15_Picture_13.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_15_Picture_13.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..837e83ddb0d3803ef685a1e7fc1e69bbe0a505b7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_15_Picture_13.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:8022aab39fd4d0bf50d2d1024ef09621d137aa03d34d4e8246ed68149c684e7c
+size 8115
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_16_Picture_15.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_16_Picture_15.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..103e84e169f72c5928594b88a980048d7c120ea8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_16_Picture_15.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:ee1e6684f785ff6ace6c3a9cf836f6e9b2fed7eaeb34a897b35852bb91deda89
+size 8268
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_6_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_6_Picture_14.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7ee093614a00b6cdc75a5996637e04cfc123c4a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_6_Picture_14.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:4e5d3aaa837d40ee261228fbcff81c8ae6dd9c0ed33589f5be7091466433d7c3
+size 8001
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_7_Picture_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_7_Picture_7.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c21bca14f85ee6f9b588989bc9e26401e4d1bb8d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_7_Picture_7.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:91aad903b1fb90b80fd0b824ea829ec6e5beec0312ef651b2938cbeb8d077b1f
+size 18778
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_8_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_8_Picture_14.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c26a1e80ceb4e5ba7728ed4b4dd9614e20965d16
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_8_Picture_14.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:874775442475def4dbb3216c2dca90c253254546ad919658c71f21a59ef2a6c8
+size 7799
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_9_Picture_9.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_9_Picture_9.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0bfb5f4167fe24ca0ad79f0b04fe037875e7bc21
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749184/_page_9_Picture_9.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:ad138589bc8d3d33a145d4f21634f3f2a5ca1c17ec8f326a612e4659899c5d64
+size 19203
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749201/EFTA02749201.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749201/EFTA02749201.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1fd9547c2d4b6facb557669cc3547a4c959db901
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749201/EFTA02749201.md
@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE DEPOSITION OF STORY COWLES AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), pursuant to Rule 26(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, moves for a protective order to prohibit the deposition of Story Cowles, and states:
+
+- 1. Plaintiff, Jane Doe (Case No. 08-80893), noticed the deposition of Story Cowles for May 12, 2010 (Notice and Subpoena attached as Exhibit A).
+- 2. Mr. Cowles was hired by Jack Goldberger, Esq., co-counsel for Mr. Epstein, on July 16, 2008 and has been employed by Mr. Goldberger since that time. Mr. Cowles was hired as Mr. Goldberger's law office assistant to be directly involved only with Mr. Epstein's case while he was serving his jail sentence at the Palm Beach County Stockade. Mr. Cowles was employed to be, among other things, a conduit for information between the attorneys (criminal
+
+and civil) and Mr. Epstein. See Affidavit of Jack Goldberger attached as Exhibit B and affidavit of Story Cowles attached as Exhibit C.
+
+3. Mr. Goldberger, as well as Mr. Epstein's civil attorneys, have used Mr. Cowles to transmit attorney-client and work product information and documents to Mr. Epstein with the clear understating and belief that the communications to Mr. Epstein from his attorneys and staff, and from Mr. Epstein to his attorneys and staff, would be protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges. See Exhibit B; see also Affidavit of Robert D. Critton, Jr. attached as Exhibit D.
+
+4. Mr. Cowles did not know, nor did he have any knowledge of, Mr. Epstein prior to his employment with Mr. Goldberger. See Exhibit C.
+
+5. Mr. Cowles did not know, nor did he have any knowledge of, prior to his employment with Mr. Goldberger. 5m Exhibit C.
+
+6. While Mr. Cowles and have dated and continue to date, they specifically have not and do not discuss the facts of the cases against her and Mr. Epstein. See Exhibit C.
+
+7. Moreover, all plaintiffs who have sued Mr. Epstein have based their claims on a time period prior to October 2005 (or even earlier). As Mr. Cowles was not hired by Mr. Goldberger until July 2008, he has no personal knowledge of any relevant information. See Exhibit C.
+
+8. Mr. Epstein has never discussed the claims asserted against him with Mr. Cowles other than when his attorneys were present or when he was transmitting information between Epstein and his attorneys. See Exhibit C.
+
+9. In October, 2009, Mr. Cowles was subpoenaed for a deposition in the companion state court case B.B. v. Epstein for the purpose of establishing the address of Counsel for Jane Doe was also seeking to depose Mr. Cowles. ee 10/07/09 Correspondence attached as Exhibit E. Thereafter, counsel for Jane Doe, counsel for B.B. and Epstein's counsel agreed on a conference call that Mr. Cowles would not be deposed if was made available for her deposition, which she was in April, 2010. See Affidavit of Michael J. Pike attached as Exhibit F and 10/13/09 E-mail from Spencer Kuvin attached as Exhibit G. While counsel for Jane Doe did not confirm this agreement in writing, he represented same in the aforementioned telephone conference. See Exhibit F. Now counsel for Jane Doe appears to be going back on his word and reneging on his agreement by attempting to depose Mr. Cowles. The Court should not condone this type of duplicitous conduct and hold counsel for Jane Doe to his word.
+
+10. Rule 26(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that, "[a] party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending.... The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: (A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery."
+
+11. Moreover, "a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other party's attorney ... or agent)." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) (emphasis added). The court must also "protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or other representative concerning the litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(B) (emphasis added). Rule 26 makes clear that the work
+
+product privilege extends to paralegals, investigators and legal assistants — agents or representatives of a party's attorney.
+
+12. The attorney-client privilege also extends to subordinates of a party's attorney.
+
+See Seebeck v. General Motors Corp., 1996 WL 742914 (N.D. Ga. 1996). In Seebeck the court noted that to invoke the attorney client privilege:
+
+> (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is ... a client; (2) the person fo whom the coMmunicition was made (a) is -a member of a bar of a court or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistant in some legal proceedings, and not (d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client.
+
+Id. at \*2 (emphasis added), citing U.S. v. Noriega, 917 F.2d 1543, 1550 (11th Cir. 1990).
+
+13. In Seeback, the court granted a protective order where a party sought to discover information from a party's investigator. The investigator submitted an affidavit (substantially similar to the affidavits submitted in support of the instant motion) in which he attested that he was hired by GM with the understanding that communications would be protected by the attorney-client privilege, that he was retained to perform work in anticipation of litigation, and that the identities of persons interviewed by the him and legal assistants reflected attorney-client communications and work product information. 1996 WL 742914 at \*2. The court agreed and entered a protective order, concluding that "Mlle nature of the information set forth in the affidavit is sufficiently compressive to establish the privileged nature of the material sought." Id. at \*3. See also S.L.C. v. World-Wide Coin Investments, Ltd., 92 F.R.D. 65, 66-67 (N.D. Ga. 1981) (denying defendant's motion to compel an investigator to produce documents and answer deposition questions, finding that the documents prepared by the investigator were protected by
+
+the work product privilege and that any communications between the investigator and attorneys and staff were protected by the attorney-client privilege); Huet v. Tromp, 912 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (quashing trial court's discovery order denying motion for protective order to prohibit deposition of d-efendanes'investigatori); Quarles & Brady, LLP v. Birdsall 802 So. 2d - 1205, 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (quashing order compelling law firm secretary to answer deposition questions regarding her conversations with her supervising partner as the questions . . invaded the attorney-client privilege).
+
+14. Regarding the scope of discovery, Judge Linnea noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE 4377), "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). Indeed the 2000 Amendment to Rule 26 has effectively limited the scope of discoverable information to those matters which are relevant to a claim or defense in the lawsuit. Dellacas. LLC v. John Moriarty & Ass. of Fla., Inc., 2007 WL 4117261 ats3 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Courts have long held that `[w]hile the standard of relevancy (in discovery] is a liberal one, it is not so liberal as to allow a party to roam in the shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matter which does not presently appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so.' Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (C.A. D.C. 1997) (string cite omitted)." (Emphasis added).
+
+15. Also, in the related matter of Epstein v. Rothstein, Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG, Judge entered an order on April 19, 2010 (attached as Exhibit H), in which he granted a protective order regarding the depositions of Michael Fisten and Rick Fandrey, investigators previously employed by Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler ("RRA"). As the Court may recall, RRA represented Jane Doe prior to its implosion.
+
+16. While Epstein sought to depose Mr. Fisten and Mr. Fandrey regarding their knowledge of Scott Rothstein's Ponzi scheme, the Court nevertheless entered a protective order prohibiting their depositions until Epstein can "establish the relevance and discoverability of the information." See Exhibit H.
+
+17. Yet unlike Fisten and Fandrey who likely have non-privileged information regarding Scott Rothstein's massive fraud and admitted criminal activity, any information that . . Mr. Cowles might have is protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges.
+
+18. As a practical matter, if the Court permits the deposition of Mr. Cowles, what is to prevent Jane Doe and other plaintiffs from attempting to depose other paralegals, secretaries, legal assistants, investigators or even attorneys employed by Epstein? As Judge noted, "while the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits." See DE #377. Jane Doe is clearly attempting to exceed the limits of permissible discovery in attempting to depose Mr. Cowles.
+
+19. Given the foregoing, it appears Jane Doe is attempting to depose Mr. Cowles for the sole purpose of harassing and intimidating him as he clearly has no discoverable information to which Jane Doe is entitled.
+
+20. Accordingly, the Court should enter a protective order to prohibit his deposition as he cannot possibly provide any information that is not protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges.
+
+WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, requests the Court enter a protective order prohibiting the deposition of Story Cowles and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.
+
+> By: /s/ Jack Alan Goldberger Florida Bar No. 262013
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this 'day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of April, 2010:
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Jack- Alan-Goldb€rget. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Florida Bar No. 262013 Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 inesa@bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey E stein
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ssm@sexabuseattomey.com ahorowitz@sexabuseattomev.com Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+
+Brad , Esq. , Jaffe, Weissing, Fistos & Lehrman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 brad@pathtoiustice.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202
+
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 riosefsberg@podhurst.com kezell@podhurst.com Counsellor Plaintiff
+
+801-585-6833 Fax cassellp@law.utah.edu Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe
+
+Isidro M. =, Esq. Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F isidrogarcidabellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for PlciiiitUriti Relitte-d Cafe No. 08- - 80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749201/EFTA02749201.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749201/EFTA02749201.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..269c4c3b809c70197ac574e2e4e40a2513e26b7b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749201/EFTA02749201.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,405 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749201.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 8,
+ "chars": 12472,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.15,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 192.70800000000003,
+ 69.66
+ ],
+ [
+ 406.14959716796875,
+ 69.66
+ ],
+ [
+ 406.14959716796875,
+ 97.98748779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 192.70800000000003,
+ 97.98748779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER \nREGARDING THE DEPOSITION OF STORY COWLES \nAND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 146.652,
+ 359.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 453.7373352050781,
+ 359.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 453.7373352050781,
+ 402.86749267578125
+ ],
+ [
+ 146.652,
+ 402.86749267578125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.824,
+ 94.77000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 357.3814697265625,
+ 94.77000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 357.3814697265625,
+ 109.47802734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.824,
+ 109.47802734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.824,
+ 399.3299999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 356.6314697265625,
+ 399.3299999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 356.6314697265625,
+ 413.97802734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.824,
+ 413.97802734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 73
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 117
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749201"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749209/EFTA02749209.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749209/EFTA02749209.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5cc2e5d5c72485e02183393d2e1398d4d1a99638
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749209/EFTA02749209.md
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
+
+## PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 4'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 4'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DE 534)
+
+Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4's Motion for Protective Order, and states as follows:
+
+1. Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4's Motion for Protective Order ("Motion") is now moot, in part, with regard to the deposition of Rocky Orezzoli, as Mr. Orezzoli was deposed by Defendant Epstein's counsel on April 30, 2010, while the Motion was pending. However, the Motion remains ripe with regard to the subpoena for deposition of Bill another former soccer coach of Jane Doe No. 4.
+
+2. Epstein repeatedly postures that Plaintiff is "yet again" seeking to stonewall his discovery efforts. This argument entirely misses the issue, however,
+
+because as Plaintiff sets forth in her Motion, the Defendant's "efforts" with regard to taking the deposition of such a marginal witness, who knows nothing of Plaintiff's alleged sexual abuse or this lawsuit, is not geared toward discovery, but rather to harass, embarrass, humiliate and intimidate the Plaintiff.
+
+3. Defendant Epstein has attempted to distract this Court as to the limited scope of the Motion before it by arguing that since some of the other Plaintiffs have experienced other traumatic events, such as other molestations, rapes, suicides by close friends/family, poverty, parental adjustment difficulties, or abuse by other family members, he should be entitled to conduct a fishing expedition on these same topics regarding Jane Doe No. 4, even though no testimony or other evidence suggests these issues arise in Jane Doe No. 4's case, or more importantly, that Bill , Plaintiff's former soccer coach, has a relationship with Plaintiff such that he has reason to know of traumatic events in her life.
+
+4. Mr. Orezzoli was Jane Doe No. 4's college soccer coach for four years. At his deposition, he was asked if he knew anything about Jane Doe No. 4's medical, employment, social and sexual histories. Not surprisingly, he knew nothing about these topics, except to say that he knew she worked at a summer camp run by the university one year. He had never heard that Jane Doe No. 4 was a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Epstein, or had "been involved with" Epstein before he was informed of that fact by Epstein's attorney at deposition. He was unable to offer any testimony about her mental and emotional state, except to say that sometimes she seemed "under stress," but that he did not know any reasons for that perceived stress. In short, it is difficult to see how anything probative or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence was gained by
+
+his deposition. The effect of the deposition was rather to inform Mr. Orezzoli that Jane Doe No. 4 is suing Defendant Epstein and the underlying facts of her case. These facts were suggested to Mr. Orezzoli by questions of Defendant's attorney about his knowledge of media reports regarding Epstein.
+
+5. Given that Mr. was also one of Plaintiffs soccer coaches, Mr. can be expected to provide no more discovery than did Mr. Orezzoli, especially when one considers that more time has passed since Mr. coached Jane Doe No. 4. Therefore, it would appear that the effect of this deposition will be to harass, intimidate, and embarrass Jane Doe No. 4, with little, if any, benefit for purposes of discovery. That is precisely the circumstance which Rule 26(c) is intended to remedy.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4, respectfully requests that her Motion for Protective Order as to the deposition of Bill be granted, and that the deposition of Bill be prohibited, or restricted to prevent unnecessary disclosures by Defendant's attorney in the form of questions, and all other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
+
+Dated: May 5, 2010. Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) ssm@sexabuseattorney.com Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I hereby certify that on May 5, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+/s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein
+
+## SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. igoldberger@agwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bc1claw.com
+
+James bedwards @ rra-law.com
+
+Isidro Manuel isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack jph@searcylaw.com U
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike MPike@bcIclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawyerwillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749209/EFTA02749209.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749209/EFTA02749209.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3f82d1f268d0cc5464020eec0e638c2c459ba0cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749209/EFTA02749209.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749209.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 5,
+ "chars": 5543,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.18,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 4'S REPLY MEMORANDUM \nIN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF JANE DOE \nNO. 4'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DE 534)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 146.88,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 465.3609619140625,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 465.3609619140625,
+ 431.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 146.88,
+ 431.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 223.38,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.9223937988281,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.9223937988281,
+ 113.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 223.38,
+ 113.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST \nDOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN \nUnited States District Court, Southern District of Florida",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 156.67200000000003,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 156.67200000000003,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749209"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749214/EFTA02749214.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749214/EFTA02749214.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a4656c9b275f5418ebcf75275a9007e995c5603
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749214/EFTA02749214.md
@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRAMM
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff, vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+#### SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
+
+Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 2 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey Epstein, as follows:
+
+#### Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue
+
+- 1. Jane Doe No. 2 is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is sui juris.
+- 2. This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a minor.
+ - 3. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York.
+ - 4. This is an action for damages in excess of \$50 million.
+- 5. This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds \$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; and (ii) is between citizens of different states.
+- 6. This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §139I(a) as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District.
+
+- 1 - EXHIBIT A-
+
+# Factual Allegations
+
+7. At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52 years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with asecret clientele limited exclusively to billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. and Palm Beach, FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach.
+
+8. Upon information and belief, Epstein has asexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave them money. In or about 2004-2005, Jane Doe, then approximately 16 years old, fell into Epstein's trap and became one of his victims.
+
+9. Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted g irls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. MI.
+
+10. Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. (Upon information and belief, the young girl who brought Jane Doe to Epstein was herself aminor victim of Epstein, and will therefore not be named in this Complaint). Under Epstein's plan, underage girls were recruited ostensibly to give awealthy man a massage for monetary compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. The recruiter would be contacted when Epstein was planning to be at his Palm Beach residence or soon after he had arrived there. Epstein or someone on his behalf would direct the recruiter to bring one or more underage girls to the residence. The recruiter, upon information and belief, generally sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from western Palm Beach County who would be enticed by the money being offered - generally \$200 to \$300 per "massage" session - and who were perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have
+
+credibility if allegations of improper conduct were made. This was an important element of Epstein's plan.
+
+11. Epstein's plan and scheme reflected aparticular pattern and method. Upon arrival at Epstein's mansion, the underage victim would be introduced toSISIII, Epstein's assistant, who gathered the girl's personal information, including her name and telephone number...IS would then bring the girl up aflight of stairs to abedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. There were photographs of nude women lining the stairways and in the bedroom. The girl would then find herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. He would then remove his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to remove her clothes. Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including masturbation and touching the girl's vagina.
+
+12. Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, Jane Doe was recruited to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. Jane was brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach. Once at the mansion, Jane was introduced to , who led her up the flight of stairs to the room with the massage table. In this room, Epstein told Jane to take off her clothes and g ive him a massage. Jane kept her panties and bra on and complied with Epstein's instructions. Epstein wore only a towel around his waste. After ashort period of time, Epstein removed the towel and rolled over exposing his penis. Epstein began to masturbate and he sexually assaulted Jane.
+
+13. After Epstein had completed the assault, Jane was then able to get dressed, leave the room and go back down the stairs. Jane was paid \$200 by Epstein. The young girl who recruited Jane was paid \$100 by Epstein for bringing Jane to him.
+
+14. As a result of this encounter with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries.
+
+## COUNT I Sexual Assault and Battery
+
+- 15. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above.
+- 16. Epstein acted with intent to cause an offensive contact with Jane Doe, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and Jane Doe was thereby put in such imminent apprehension.
+- 17. Epstein made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Jane Doe, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril.
+- 18. Epstein intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person ofJane Doe, with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent.
+- 19. Epstein tortiously committed asexual assault and battery on Jane Doe. Epstein's acts were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful.
+- 20. Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were done willfully and maliciously.
+- 21. As adirect and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional damages.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
+
+## COUNT H Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
+
+- 22. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above.
+- 23. Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless.
+- 24. Epstein's conduct with aminor was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds
+
+of decency.
+
+25. Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired.
+
+26. Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and damage to Jane Doe, or Epstein acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing severe emotional distress to Jane Doe.
+
+27. As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane Doe, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
+
+### COUNT III Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity In Violation of 18 U.S.C. 42422
+
+28. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above.
+
+29. Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with acriminal offense.
+
+30. On June 30, 2008, Epstein entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida §§ 796.07 and 796.03, in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case nos. 2008-cf-00938 I AXXXMB and 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB), for conduct involving the same plan and scheme as alleged herein.
+
+31. As to Plaintiff Jane Doe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of
+
+Florida Statute §796.07(2) (including subsections (c), (d), (e), (0, (g), and (h) thereof), and other criminal offenses including violations of Florida Statutes §P98.02 and 800.04 (including subsections (5), (6) and (7) thereof).
+
+32. Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422.
+
+33. As a result of Epstein's violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422, Plaintiffhas suffered personal injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages.
+
+34. Plaintiff hired Herman & Mermelstein, P.A., in this matter and agreed to pay them a reasonable attorneys' fee.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), including without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
+
+#### JURY TRIAL DEMAND
+
+Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action on all claims so triable.
+
+Dated: February 27, 2008
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: s/ Adam D. Horowitz Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) ssm(Thsexabuseattornev.com Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@sexabuseattornev.com MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877
+
+### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I hereby certify that on February 27, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+/s/ Adam D. Horowitz
+
+## SERVICE LIST
+
+DOE vs. JEFFRErvj irtSal m
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-
+
+United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. izoldberueraamvpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bciclaw.com
+
+/s/ Adam D. Horowitz
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749214/EFTA02749214.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749214/EFTA02749214.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4e34037931ce1717ccf26b38c59b78e36f68a2ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749214/EFTA02749214.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,571 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749214.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 8,
+ "chars": 10778,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.29,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.11000061035156,
+ 91.5302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 392.904,
+ 91.5302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 392.904,
+ 118.25999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.11000061035156,
+ 118.25999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 208.07999999999998,
+ 289.9180603027344
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.7380065917969,
+ 289.9180603027344
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.7380065917969,
+ 303.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 208.07999999999998,
+ 303.75
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 222.15599999999998,
+ 368.55
+ ],
+ [
+ 377.604,
+ 368.55
+ ],
+ [
+ 377.604,
+ 382.32
+ ],
+ [
+ 222.15599999999998,
+ 382.32
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Factual Allegations",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 257.03999999999996,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 357.6299743652344,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 357.6299743652344,
+ 99.061279296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 257.03999999999996,
+ 99.061279296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "COUNT I \nSexual Assault and Battery",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 238.06800000000004,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 375.6601257324219,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 375.6601257324219,
+ 112.421630859375
+ ],
+ [
+ 238.06800000000004,
+ 112.421630859375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "COUNT H \nIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 192.78000000000003,
+ 568.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.0013427734375,
+ 568.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.0013427734375,
+ 598.3182678222656
+ ],
+ [
+ 192.78000000000003,
+ 598.3182678222656
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "COUNT III \nCoercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity In Violation of 18 U.S.C. 42422",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 118.72800000000001,
+ 425.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 484.6938171386719,
+ 425.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 484.6938171386719,
+ 454.64923095703125
+ ],
+ [
+ 118.72800000000001,
+ 454.64923095703125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "JURY TRIAL DEMAND",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 237.45600000000002,
+ 397.71
+ ],
+ [
+ 361.9031677246094,
+ 397.71
+ ],
+ [
+ 361.9031677246094,
+ 411.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 237.45600000000002,
+ 411.48
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 227.66400000000002,
+ 84.4202880859375
+ ],
+ [
+ 373.32,
+ 84.4202880859375
+ ],
+ [
+ 373.32,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 227.66400000000002,
+ 98.82
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 85.85999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 346.1225280761719,
+ 85.85999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 346.1225280761719,
+ 100.8170166015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 100.8170166015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 58
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 409
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 409
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 297
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 347
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 253
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749214"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749222/EFTA02749222.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749222/EFTA02749222.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd52d8ceb103f06b1065deea0760eb97ea9b433c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749222/EFTA02749222.md
@@ -0,0 +1,385 @@
+### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA,
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+-vs-
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+VOLUME I OF II
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+# VIDEO-CONFERENCED AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2
+
+Wednesday, March 3, 2010
+
+10:02 - 6:19 p.m.
+
+250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+
+Reported B :
+
+Cynthia RPR, FPR
+
+Notary Public, State of Florida
+
+Prose Court Reporting
+
+Job No.: 1325
+
+EXHIBIT g.
+
+### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, -vs-JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant.
+
+VOLUME II OF II
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+VIDEO-CONFERENCED AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF (
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2
+
+Wednesday, March 3, 2010
+
+10:02 - 6:19 p.m.
+
+250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+
+Reported By: Cynthia RPR, FPR Notary Public, State of Florida Prose Court Reporting Job No.: 1325
+
+tronicatly signed by Cynthia tronically signed by Cynthia tronically signed by Cynthia (601-051-976.2934) (601-051-976.2934) (601-051-976-2834)
+
+' Cit..-3e
+
+either by phone or by mail? A. By mail. I got mail that's, I think that's how I kept in contact with everyone. I don't, I don't think I had conversations with them on the phone about it. Q. Okay. Did she ask you whether you had, "she," the agent, ever ask you whether you had had telephone, any telephone conversations with Mr. Epstein? A. I don't think she asked me that. Q. Okay. And just let me ask just a couple of questions. Is, is — you never gave Mr. Epstein or anyone on his behalf your phone number, did you? A. Yes, I did. Q. To whom did you give your phone number? A. The lady downstairs, his assistant. Q. All right. A. Or whatever she is. Q. No one, Mr.— you have never spoken with Mr. Epstein by phone, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. He has never texted you nor have you ever texted him, correct? A. Correct. Q. You have never communicated to him,
+
+ communicated with Mr. Epstein or anyone on his behalf over the Internet, either to or from, correct? A. Correct. Q. You have not used your computer Facebook, a social networking site, to communicate with Mr. Epstein or anyone on his behalf, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And if I may just so it's correct you have never texted or no one on behalf — strike that. You have had no contact by phone, text, Internet, computer with Mr. Epstein or anyone acting on Mr. Epstein's behalf, correct? MR. HOROWITZ: Form. THE WITNESS: Correct. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Okay. Did, the only contact that you ever had with Mr. Epstein or really anyone on his behalf was that one-time visit in the latter part of December of 200sli\_correct? A. Well, Dr. ME and now you. Q. But that's adifferent issue. Back in the time period — MR. HOROWITZ: That's a good answer.
+
+BY MR. CRITTON: Q. The only contact you had with Mr. Epstein at his home or with him or someone workin his behalf, other than me as his attorney or Dr.M, who did amedical examination on you -- I forgot the question. I have to start again. Other than myself whIrspresents Mr. Epstein and other than Dr. who did an examination of you, you've had no contact either with Mr. Epstein or with anyone who has been acting on his behalf at any time other than that one occasion in December of '04; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. With the FBI, did you ever get aletter from them or from the Department of Justice, the United State's Attorneys Office, at any time? A. I believe so. They were keeping me updated. Q. Okay. And at some point did you team that Mr. Epstein was, had pled guilty to state offenses and was serving time in jail? A. Yes. Q. Okay. How did you learn that? A. Through the, the letters that I got like once every couple of months or once year. Q. And in any of the letters that you ever
+
+received from the, either the FBI or the United State's Attorneys office, did they ever tell you you had the ability to bring acivil lawsuit for money damages against Mr. Epstein? MR. HOROWITZ: Form. THE WITNESS: I'm not sure. I don't know actually. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. And how did — again I don't want to know any is the first lawyer that you met from the law firm that your, that your, that you currently employ, is that Mr. Herman? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And where did you first meet Mr. Herman? A. My mother contacted him. Q. Okay. And how did she get in contact with him, do you know? A. I believe she read about one of the other girls that had come out and talked and spoke about her day with Mr. Epstein, and then she wanted me to talk to somebody as well. Q. Is this someone who had filed alawsuit against Mr. Epstein -- MR. HOROWITZ: Form.
+
+(Pages 212 to 215)
+
+Electronically signed by cyntbia Electronically signed by cringe Electronically signed by cynthis (601-051.976.2934) (601.051.978-2934)
+
+Q. Okay. Where does Nicole live? A. What do you — are you going to follow her or something?
+
+Q. I just ask a question. A. She lives in La Mancha. Q. Where does she live, please? She lives in La Mancha? Is that a housing area?
+
+A. It's a neighborhood. Q. Do you know what her address is? 1.0 A. 110 Prado Street. Q. P-r-a-d-o?
+
+A. Yes. Q. West Palm Beach? A. Yes. Q. D:)y2u know what -- or I'm sorry,
+
+Nicole' phone number is? A. Her house phone number is 795-4371.
+
+Q. And are you still best friends with Nicole
+
+A. Yes. Q. Have you seen her since you've been down here?
+
+A. No.
+
+Q. Do you plan to see her before you retum home to Tennessee?
+
+A. Yes. Q. When are you going to see her, tonight? A. I haven't gotten that far.
+
+Q. How long do you plan to be in Florida now that you're down here?
+
+A. A couple of days, aweek.
+
+Q. Okay. Where are you staying?
+
+A. At my brother's house.
+
+Q. Natural brother or step-brothers?
+
+A. Natural brother.
+
+Q. What's his name?
+
+A.
+
+Q. Where does he live?
+
+A. I have no idea.
+
+Q. I'm sorry?
+
+A. He lives on E Road. I don't know his address.
+
+Q. In West Palm Beach?
+
+A. Yes. Why do you need to know where I'm staying? I don't think that's relevant to this. That is not — I don't want to be scared for my life.
+
+Q. There would be no reason that you would be scared for your life.
+
+A. Well, why -
+
+Q. Okay.
+
+A. — is the reason for you to ask where I'm at?
+
+Q. I get to ask the questions. I'll let your lawyer at abreak tell you why I get to ask or not ask questions. Okay? There should be no reason that you or anyone else should be scared for their S lives.
+
+A. I would hope not.
+
+Q. Is your brother married,
+
+A. Yeah.
+
+Q. You say you told your, your best friend Nicole what had happened at Mr. Epstein's house. When did you tell Nicole that? Did you tell her that day that you came back from Mr. Epstein's home?
+
+MR. HOROWITZ: Object to the form.
+
+THE WITNESS: No. I told her the next
+
+day. BY MR. CRITTON:
+
+Q. Do you recall the exact date you were at Mr. Epstein's home?
+
+A. No. Q. Okay. You went to Mr. Epstein's home on one occasion, correct?
+
+A. Yes.
+
+Q. Do you remember the year it was in?
+
+A. 2004.
+
+ Q. A. Q. A. Do you remember — Eleventh grade. Do you rennunber the month? I believe it was in December, near Christmas time.
+
+ Q. So, if I understand, when you left
+
+ Mr. Epstein's home -- and I'll just use late
+
+ December of '04; is that okay with you?
+
+ A. Yeah.
+
+ Q. When you went to his home, you didn't say anything about your experience to Ms. Doe No. 3; is that col lea?
+
+ MR. HOROWITZ: Form.
+
+ THE WITNESS: I told her one thing that he tried fingering me, and she said that it was okay, that she, that that happened to her friend.
+
+ BY MR CRITTON:
+
+ Q. And did she — when she said it was okay, did it seem, at least to Ms. Doe No. 3, that that was no big deal?
+
+ A. Yes.
+
+ Q. Okay. Did Ms. Doe No.3 tell you, either before or after you went to Mr. Epstein's horn; that she had been with Mr. Epstein personally?
+
+2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No. Q. Okay. Did she ever express to you any type of emotion, anger, being upset based upon her having been to Mr. Epstein's home, what, whatever her experience had been? A. No. Q. Okay. When you told her that he tried to finger you, did you, did she -- other than saying, okay, yeah, that happened with another friend of hers, did she say anything else? A. She said that he thought -- that if he thought I was pretty, he would want me to come back again. And I told her that I wasn't going to ever go back there. Q. Okay. Did, did she -- at least, she meaning lane Doe No. 3, did she give at least - well, let me strike that. Did Jane Doe No. 3 express to you that she, that Ms. Doe No. 3, would like you to come back or may want you to come back, I mean prior to your saying that's not something that I want to do? MR. HOROWITZ: Form. THE WITNESS: Did she — are you asking, did she want me to — did she ask me if she wanted me to go back there?
+
+1 BY MR. CRITTON: 2 Q. Yeah. 3 A. (Non verbal response.) 4 Q. Yes? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. Did, did anything about your 7 experience — well, let me strike that. 8 Did Ms. — did Jane Doe No. 3 express to 9 you any type of concern about your having been at 10 Mr. Epstein's home based on your experience? 11 MR. HOROWITZ: Form. 12 THE WITNESS: Did she seem concerned? 13 BY MR. CRITTON: 14 Q. Yeah. 15 A. No. 16 Q. Okay. Did she say anything that would 17 have led you to the, to the — led you to an 18 impression that she somehow had been emotionally 19 traumatized at all by Mr. Epstein? 20 MR. HOROWITZ: Form. 21 THE WITNESS: Not really. 22 BY MR. CRITTON: 23 Q. Okay. Did she appear to you to be 24 uncomfortable; that is, when you went to 25 Mr. E stein's home with her — let me strike that.
+
+1 Is Jane Doe No. 3 the one who took you to 2 Mr. Epstein's home? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. Was she — was anyone else there with you 5 at the time? When I say "anyone else," did anyone 6 else of your friends or acquaintances go with you to 7 Mr. Epstein's home on that one occasion in December, 8 late December of 2004? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Okay. Do you remember, did you know a 11 girl named Jane Doe No.4, Doe No. 4? 12 A. I know — I know of her. I 'mow of her, but 13 I, I don't know her really. 14 Q. Okay. Do you remember Jane Doe No. 4 15 being there with you? 16 A. No. 17 Q. So, it was, did Ms. Doe No. 3 pick you up 18 in her car? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And on the way to Mr. Epstein's and I'm 21 going to come back to this a little later, but just 22 so I get a couple of facts squared in my mind, is 23 either on the way to Mr. Epstein's or after you left 24 Mr. Epstein's; that is, the entire time you spent 25 with Jane Doe No. 3, did she ever say or express any
+
+Page 45 1 concern that she had ever had being at Mr. Epstein's 2 home or being around Mr. Epstein's home? 3 MR. HOROWITZ: Form. 4 THE WITNESS: No. 5 BY MR. CRITTON: 6 Q. Okay. Did she, during the time you were 7 with her on the trip over, when you were in the 8 house, when you left the house, did Jane Doe No. 3 9 appear to you in any way to be anxious or, or 10 nervous or unhappy, that is, did you see anything in 11 her demeanor that, that looked to be uneasy in any 12 way? 13 MR. HOROWITZ: Form. 14 THE WITNESS: Not really. 15 BY MR. CRITTON: 16 Q. Did Jane Doe No. 3 say to you anything 17 along the lines of, like, this is no big deal, you 18 know, something like that? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Okay. Was Jane Doe No. 3 paid when you 21 let me strike that. 22 Do you have any knowledge as to what Jane 23 Doe No. 3, whether Jane Doe No. 3 received any money 24 for your having come to Mr. Epstein's home? 25 A. Yes.
+
+1 Q. How much was she paid? 2 A. \$100. 3 Q. Did she have to share that with anyone to 4 your knowledge? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Okay. Did you, when you — and were you 7 aware when you left Mr. Epstein's home that she 8 received \$100? 9 A. I had to give it to her. 10 Q. Okay. Were you — did she tell you before 11 you went to Mr. Epstein's home that she would 12 receive money? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Okay. Do you think Jane Doe No.3 shares 15 responsibility for having taken you to Mr. Epstein's 16 home? 17 MR. HOROWITZ: Form. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 BY MR. CRITTON: 20 Q. Okay. Have you ever expressed to anyone 21 other than your lawyers that you think Jane Doe 22 No. 3 should be sued because she — but for Jane Doe 23 No. 3 taking you to Mr. Epstein's home, you never 24 would have met him? 25 MR. HOROWITZ: Form.
+
+1 THE WITNESS: Your question is, do I think 2 Jane Doe No. 3 should be sued for taking me 3 there? 4 BY MR. CRITTON: 5 Q. Yeah. Berill let but, but for Jane Doe 6 No. 3, you would have never heard of Mr. Epstein, 7 would you? 8 MR. HOROWITZ: Form. 9 THE WITNESS: I would have never heard of 10 him if she hadn't come up to me and mentioned 11 him, yeah -- 12 BY MR CRITTON: 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. -- but.. 15 Q. Have you ever considered suing Jane Doe 16 No. 3 for having taken you there? 17 MR. HOROWITZ: Form. I am going to assert 18 a privilege. That would be work product. 19 MR. CRITTON: I'm, I'm just asking her - 20 MR. HOROWITZ: No, I, I get that, but her, 21 you're asking -- hold on a second. You're 22 asking her what her legal theories are, and it 23 overlaps with what — as her counsel, we 24 infiltrate our legal opinions, and I don't 25 think you can separate the two. I am asserti
+
+1 the privilege. 2 MR. CRITTON: I, I disagree. 3 MR. HOROWITZ: Don't answer. 4 MR. CRITTON: Okay. We disagree on that. S Let's move on. 6 BY MR. CRITTON: 7 Q. Okay. Have, have you told anyone other 8 than your lawyers you would like to sue Jane Doe 9 No. 3 because you hold her responsible for taking 10 you to Jeffrey Epstein's home? 11 A. I've thought about it. I don't — I didn't 12 say anything to anyone. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. I already got my revenge with her. 15 Q. How did you get your revenge with her, 16 Jane Doe No. 3? 17 A. We got into an argument and a fight -- 18 Q. About what? I'm sorry, I didn't mean 19 to -- that's another rule, or a pro, process here, 20 is if you interrupt me on a question, and I haven't 21 finished my question, I am going to say, hold on, 22 Ms. Doe No. 2, let me finish my question so you 23 understand what Fm asking. 24 If I interrupt you with one of your 25 answers and you hesitate and I start with another
+
+1 question, tell me you haven't finished and I'll let 2 you finish. Okay? 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. You said you got into a fight with Jane 5 Doe No. 3? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. And what was the light about? 8 A. To her, it was about a boy. Fm not even sure 9 what it was about. She just wanted to come after me, 10 and for me it was more of, of, like, I don't like you, 11 and I want you to know that l never want you to hurt 12 anybody and that she was wrong. 13 Q. Okay. I didn't understand your answer. 14 From your perspective well, let me strike that. 15 When did the fight occur with Jane Doe No. 3? 16 A. Going -- summer of going into 12th grade. 17 Q. Which would have been the summer of 2005, 18 or the August-ish 2005? 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. Okay. And you say it's Jane Doe No. 3's 21 view -- and how do you know what Jane Doe No. 3's 22 view of the fight was? 23 A. FtPrallqP she kept calling me a slut and saying 24 that, that I was hanging out with this guy that she 25 liked, that I didn't like, but...
+
+1 Q. All right. Now, you said when you looked 2 at the police report you noticed — I'm going to 3 come back to this later, but just so I have a basic 4 understanding. What did you see in the police 5 report that was different from what you 6 understood — or let me strike that. 7 What did you see in the police report that 8 stood out to you that you indicated that you had 9 forgotten? 10 A. The fact that he unsnapped my bra and was 11 touching me on my breasts. 12 Q. Okay. Anything else? 13 A. That his forgers went slightly inside my 14 vagina. 15 Q. And you is that something when you 16 saw —You can take a break anytime you want. 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at 18 10:33. 19 (A brief recess taken.) 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the 21 record at 10:38 a.m. 22 BY MR. CRITTON: 23 Q. Jane Doe No. 2, you indicated that the, in 24 reviewing the police report you were talking about 25 the areas of the police report that reminded you, or
+
+1 when you saw them you now recall that this, these 2 two events may have happened; one is, you say he, 3 he, I assume you mean Mr. Epstein, unsnapped your 4 bra and touched your breasts, is item I, correct, if 5 I understood you? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. And the second is you say you think his 8 fingers may have slightly gone inside or touched you 9 inside your, your vagina; is that correct? 10 A. I don't think. I know. 11 Q. Well, with regard to anything else that 12 you saw in the police report that, as you've 13 described, quote/unquote, reminded you or called — 14 made you able to recall what occurred at 15 Mr. Epstein's home as you sit here today now? 16 A. What was the question? 17 Q. Okay. Was there anything else that you 18 saw from the police report that you indicate; that 19 is, the police — let me strike that. 20 Just so it's clear, it's, the police 21 typo is not what you said, it's what a police 22 officer recorded in his or her report that you said 23 to them; is that correct? 24 MR. HOROWITZ: Form. 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. That's correct.
+
+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. CRITTON: Q. All right. And was there anything else that saw in the police officer's recordation; that is, what he put on the page, of what you purportedly said to him at that time that you — that refreshed your recollection in some way about what happened at Mr. Epstein's, that, that prior to yesterday was not in your recollection? A. Those were the only two things. Q. All right. Now, if the police officer you indicated that Item 1 is, is that he unsnapped your bra and touched your breasts, correct? A. Correct. Q. And when you say "he" — had that not been in the police report, is that something that you, at least as of yesterday, you didn't remember? MR. HOROWITZ: Form, improper hypothetical. THE WITNESS: I remember it being worse than what I keep telling everybody had happened, because I don't want people to think, think that some old man touched me like that and was allowed to get away with it and everything was okay.
+
+1 BY MR. CRITTON: 2 Q. Well, what do you — what do you mean, 3 he's been allowed to get away with it? 4 A. No matter what I say or do, nothing is going 5 to happen to him. And that's the only thing that I 6 want. 7 Q. What — 8 A. I want him to know that what he did was wrong 9 and to never ever do that to anybody, bPranse nobody 10 deserves to feel the way that I deserve — that I felt 11 that day. I would never want anyone to have to go 12 through that. 13 Q. Okay. And did — that day you were at 14 Mr. Epstein's home, when you left did you express 15 just what you did on the video camera and to the 16 court reporter here, did you express that to your 17 close personal friend, Jane Doe No. 3? 18 A. Close personal was not — she was not close 19 and personal. She was a girl that I went to school 20 with. I did not express that to her because she was the 21 person that had brought me there. 1 expressed that same 22 statement to my best friend, the only person in this 23 entire world that I told. 24 Q. Who WaS that? 25 A. My friend Nicole =.
+
+The police talked to you about a year later, which would have been in approximately December of '05? A. Yes. S Q. Between the time that you went to Mr. Epstein's home and the police talked to you in December of '05, had you, other than speaking with NicoleM, had you spoken -- had you told anyone else what purportedly happened to you at Mr. Epstein's home? MR. HOROWITZ: Fonn. THE WITNESS: I told Mitch Burgher, because I had worked with him at Publix, that she did some bad things and that she wasn't a good person. BY MR. CRITION: Q. "She" meaning Jane Doe No. 3? A. Yes. Q. Dicey. And what did he say? A. He just couldn't believe. I didn't tell him like the full-on story. !just told him some of the things that happened and how she had lied to me about everything. And then he was, you know, very comforting, gave me a hug and said, you know, that was wrong, she should have never done that, you know.
+
+Q. Are you aware of anyone else that Jane Doe No. 3 ever took to Mr. Epstein's home? A. I heard of a girl, but I don't, I don't know her name. I heard of a girl going there and the boys were all talking to me at school saying how they can't believe some girl went there and she was young and she did things to him. And I thought at first they were talking about me, and then it ended up they said this other girl's name, and I was like, who's that, and then that was it. And that's all I heard. Q. Okay. So you don't know anyone else who ever went to Mr. Epstein's home, any other females that went? A. I now know that a couple of girls were the recruiters. Q. Who? A. I've heard of that Jane Doe No. 4. I don't blow her last name. 'know of a girl Jane Doe No. 103 and Q. With Mitch Burgher, what did you tell — did you tell Mitch within a few days — well, let me strike that. When did you tell Mitch about Jane Doe No. 3 and what she had done? A. It was weeks afterward. Q. But before the Palm Beach Police talked to
+
+you? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever talk to the FEB? A. Yes. Q. All right. What did you tell Mitch happened? What did you tell him about Jane Doe No. 3 and what happened at Mr. Epstein's? A. About the note and about how she — Q. The note? A. The note that she wrote to me in class about what she, how she wanted me to go and give just old guys a massage and you get like \$200. And ! said, okay. It's right around Christmastime. I have eight people in my family that I have to get presents for, you know. And, and then she said iflever told anybody that she would punch me in the face or beat me up, and -- Q. Did she say something like, Ill beat your ass or something like that? A. Yeah. Q. That's what she said? A. Yeah. Q. All right. So she basically gave you a note and said, do you have an interest in going to a -- to give a massage to this old -- an old guy or guys?
+
+A. She said it's in the — you know, it's in a place where there's a bunch of old guys and there's young girls. You don't need experience, and you just give them a massage and they pay good money just to have you massage them. Q. This is what Jane Dee No. 3 told you in the note? A. Yeah. Q. And then she said, if you tell anybody, I'm going to beat you up or I'll beat your ass? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. And was Jane Doe No. 3 a friend of yours at the time? A. She was — she sat next to me in classes, and she — I'd known her since middle school and high school. Q. What was Jane Doe No. 3's reputation; that is, was she someone who was -- like, did you consider her a Truthful person? MR. HOROWITZ: Fonn. THE WITNESS: She was just more of — like, she hung out with more of, like, the cooler girls and she, she I just, I just personally didn't really want to hang out with her until high school we hung out in the same
+
+1 either by phone or by mail? 2 A. By mail. I got mail that's, I think that's 3 how I kept in contact with everyone. I don't, I don't 4 think I had conversations with them on the phone about 5 it. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. Did she ask you whether you had, "she," the agent, ever ask you whether you had had telephone, any telephone conversations with Mr. Epstein? A. I don't think she asked me that. Q. Okay. And just let me ask just a couple of questions. Is, is you never gave Mr. Epstein or anyone on his behalf your phone number, did you? A. Yes, I did. Q. To whom did you give your phone number? A. The lady downstairs, his assistant. Q. All right A. Or whatever she is. Q. No one, Mr.— you have never spoken with Mr. Epstein by phone, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. He has never texted you nor have you ever texted him, coned? A. Correct. Q. You have never communicated to him,
+
+2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 communicated with Mr. Epstein or anyone on his behalf over the Internet, either to or from, correct? A. Correct. Q. You have not used your computer Facebook, a social networking site, to communicate with Mr. Epstein or anyone on his behalf, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And if I may just so it's correct you have never texted or no one on behalf — strike that. You have had no contact by phone, text, Internet, computer with Mr. Epstein or anyone acting on Mr. Epstein's behalf, correct? MR. HOROWITZ: Form. THE WITNESS: Correct. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Okay. Did, the only contact that you ever had with Mr. Epstein or really anyone on his behalf was that one-time visit in the latter part of December of 2004, correct? A. Well, Dr. El and now you. Q. But that's a different issue. Back in the time period — MR. HOROWITZ: That's a good answer.
+
+1 BY MR. CRITTON: 2 Q. The only contact you had with Mr. Epstein 3 at his home or with him or someone working on his 4 behalf, other than me as his attorney or Dr. IM 5 who did a medical examination on you — I OP the 6 question. I have to start again. 7 Other than myself who represents 8 Mr. Epstein and other than Dr. 1.1who did an 9 examination of you, you've had no contact either 10 with Mr. Epstein or with anyone who has been acting 11 on his behalf at any time other than that one 12 rbreacion in December of '04; is that correct? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. With the FBI, did you ever get a letter 15 from them or from the Department of Justice, the 16 United State's Attorney's Office, at any time? 17 A. I believe so. They were keeping me updated. 18 Q. Okay. And at some point did you learn 19 that Mr. Epstein was, had pled guilty to state 20 offenses and was serving time in jail? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. How did you learn that? 23 A. Through the, the letters that I got like once 24 every couple of months or once year. 25 Q. And in any of the letters that you ever
+
+1 received from the, either the FBI or the United 2 State's Attorney's office, did they ever tell you 3 you had the ability to bring a civil lawsuit for 4 money damages against Mr. Epstein? 5 MR. HOROWITZ: Form. 6 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure. I don't know 7 actually. 8 BY MR. CRITTON: 9 Q. And how did — again I don't want to know 10 any — is the first lawyer that you met from the law 11 firm that your, that your, that you currently 12 employ, is that Mr. Herman? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. And where did you first meet 15 Mr. Herman? 16 A. My mother contacted him. 17 Q. Okay. And how did she get in contact with 18 him, do you know? 19 A. I believe she read about one of the other 20 girls that had come out and talked and spoke about her 21 day with Mr. Epstein, and then she wanted me to talk to 22 somebody as well. 23 Q. Is this someone who had filed a lawsuit 24 against Mr. Epstein -- 25 MR. HOROWITZ: Form.
+
+1 would that be generally -- well, let me see. When 2 you saw Dr. Kliman that was about a year ago, I 3 think his visit with you. And I actually, I think I 4 have the date someplace. It was, I think it was on 5 December 4th of '08. I'll represent to you that's 6 at least what his records reflect. Okay? 7 A. Okay. a Q. Which is a little over a year ago. So at 9 the time you were seeing Dr. Kliman, were you using 10 or smoking pot generally a couple of times, two or 11 duce times a week? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. And has that been true since you 14 saw Dr. Kliman up through the current date? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And even at home, do you smoke -- well, 17 let me strike that. Do you smoke pot at home? 18 A. Not in my patents' house. 19 Q. Okay. Do they smoke pot? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Do, does your brother Michael or your half 22 sister, do they smoke pot with you? 23 A. My brother, no. My sister, yes. 24 Q. Okay. And is she one of the people that 25 you smoke with or you have over, say, in the last
+
+1 six months? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. And how do you purchase it? Are 4 you currently employed? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. And are you the one who purchases 7 it, or do you and Kris, Kristen both purchase it and 8 share it? 9 MR. HOROWITZ: Form. 10 THE WITNESS: I purchase it, and I share 11 it with people. 12 BY MR. CROTON: 13 Q. Okay. For how long a time period have you 14 used pot on a two-or-three-times-a-week basis? 15 A. Probably since 12th grade. 16 Q. And I assume when you started using pot, 17 or let's see, 12th grade would have made you about 18 17 or 18 at the time? 19 A. Uh-huh. 20 Q. Yes? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And you're now? 23 A. Twenty-two. 24 Q. Twenty-two. So, for about the last four 2 5 or five •ears, ou've been smolcin t two to three
+
+1 times a week on that, I would say, a regular basis; 2 would that be a fair statement? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And I assume that's a choice that you 5 make. You obviously like it, so you smoke it? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. All right. And you don't attribute that 8 to anything other than you like to smoke pot? 9 MR. HOROWITZ: Form. 10 THE WITNESS: What is "attribute to 11 anything"? 12 BY MR. CRITTON: 13 Q. That is, attribute is, is, there is, out 14 in California, maybe other states, they have 15 medicinal marijuana, and so people who have severe 16 symptoms associated with possibly cancer or 17 something else, they are allowed under the law to 18 smoke pot. So, they would attribute — they may not 19 like to smoke pot. They may be against smoking pot, 20 but because marijuana helps alleviate their 21 symptoms, it would be they take pot or use pot, and 22 they attribute it, because they have cancer, it 23 helps them feel better. All right. So they, 24 that — there's a reason for it. 25 If I understand your testimony, is, is,
+
+Page 33
+
+1 you smoke pot and you started in the 12th grade at 2 age 17-ish because you like it, and because you like 3 it you have continued to use it. Is that a fair 4 statement? 5 MR. HOROWITZ: Form. 6 THE WITNESS: It helps me relax; take my 7 mind off of things. 8 BY MR. CR1TTON: 9 Q. Okay. But it's a choice you make either 10 to smoke pot or not smoke pot? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. All right. Is there anything else you 13 lied or misrepresented to Dr. Kliman about with 14 regard to amount of drug use -- 15 MR. HOROWITZ: Form. 16 BY MR. CRTFTON: 17 Q. -- other than your reference to marijuana. 18 A. No. 19 Q. Everything else you told Dr. Kliman about, 20 drug use or any other aspect, was true -- 21 MR- HOROWITZ: Form. 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. 23 BY MR. CRITTON: 24 Q. — is that correct? 25 A. Yes.
+
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+-vs-
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+VOLUME I OF II
+
+# Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+# VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
+
+JANE DOE NO. 3
+
+Friday, February 19, 2010 10:07 - 5:09 p.m.
+
+250 Australian Avenue Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+
+Reported B : Cynthia , RPR, FPR Notary Public, State of Florida Prose Court Reporting Services Job No.: 1298
+
+4'1 .3Ct'S
+
+Page 174 Page 176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR CRITTON: Q. Okay. And what kind of a friend, at least with Jane Doe No. 2, what kind of a friend exposes another good friend to a shocking, disturbing, emotionally disturbing event? MR. MERMELSTEIN: Form, argumentative, rhetorical. BY MR CRITT0N: Q. Why did you do that? A. I don't know. Q. Okay. You also did that to J., J.L., correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Why did you do that with J.L.? A. I don't know. MR. CRITTON: Let's go about ten more minutes, and we'll take a break. Okay? MR MERMELSTEIN: All right. Is that okay? THE WITNESS: (Witness nods head.) MR. MERMELSTEIN: Okay. BY MR CRITTON: Q. Did you tel J.L. what had occurred? Did you tell her what you had told
+
+1 BY MR. CRITTON: 2 Q. All right. Let me go back to J.L., okay. 3 At the time that Mr. Epstein, at least based on what 4 you testified earlier today, is because Mr. Epstein S did touch your breasts — well, in fact, I should 6 probably clear up one thing. He only touched you in 7 the vaginal area, from what you've testified to 8 today, is over your boy shorts, correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And you have said that there was never any 11 penetration? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Okay. You never touched any of his 14 private parts, true? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Okay. You never had any kind of 17 intercourse? 18 A. No. 19 Q. All right. Never had oral sex? 20 A. No. 21 Q. He to you, you to him, correct? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Any type of other — no type of sexual 24 contact whatsoever? 25 MR. MERMELSTEIN: Objection, form.
+
+Page 175 1 BY MR. CRITTON: 2 Q. That is, your, your sexual organ with one 3 of his sexual organs; that never occurred, correct? 4 A. You're asking me if I've had sex with him? 5 Q. No. None of your sexual organs ever came 6 in contact with his sexual organs, true? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. All right. So, again, what — based on 9 what you told Haley that he did touch your breasts, 10 and that you did take your shirt and your skirt off 11 but left on your bm and your boy shorts, that you 12 were in shock and emotionally disturbed at what 13 happened within — at the time, and then you told 14 Haley within an hour how upset you were, you also 15 took Jane Doe No. 2 there, cm z ea? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. All right. And was Jane Doe No. 2 a good 18 friend of yours, then? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. All right. So despite this, I'd say, 21 shocking incident to you, you were willing to expose 22 your friend Jane Doe No. 2 as well to, at least 23 based on your testimony, to this shocking, 24 disturbing experience that you had had, true? 25 MR. MERMELSTEIN: Form.
+
+Page 177 1 A. Not exactly. 2 Q. But did you tell her she might be asked to 3 take off her clothes? 4 A. And that you don't have to, yes. 5 Q. All right. And you said you, you may be 6 asked to take off your clothes, but you don't have 7 to? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. And did you say he might try to 10 touch you, but if he does, just tell him you're not 11 comfortable? 12 MR. MERMELSTEIN: Form. 13 THE WITNESS: Can you — 14 BY MR CRITTON: 15 Q. Yeah. Did you, did you tell her as well, 16 is if he tries to touch you, just tell him you don't 17 feel comfortable? 18 MR MERMELSTEIN: Form. 19 THE WITNESS: I told her if he tries to do 20 anything, you can say no. 21 BY MR. CRITTON: 22 Q. Okay. And, and then he will stop? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. And did you tell Jane Doe No. 2 the 25 same thing —
+
+1 A. Yes.
+2 Q. So you met them both about the same time,
+3 a year or two before June of '04?
+4 A. Yeah.
+5 Q. Okay. And again, after you, at any time
+6 from the time that you first talked with -- or Jane
+7 Doe No. 4 knew that you were going to Mr. Epstein's,
+8 did she ever appear to you to have any emotional or
+9 psychological issues? And I know you're not a
+10 psychiatrist or psychologist or a counselor, but did
+11 she ever express any issues with you, emotional
+12 kinds of issues?
+13 A. I don't remember.
+14 Q. Okay. Nothing stands out anyway?
+15 A. Right.
+16 Q. All right. Same with Jane Doe No. 7, did
+17 she ever express any type of emotional issues that
+18 she was having, any kind of psychological trauma
+19 that she had experienced or that she wanted to share
+20 with you? Did you ever note it -- either did they
+21 share -- did Jane Doe No. 7 either share it with
+22 you, or did you observe something that concerned you
+23 at all about her?
+24 MR. MERMELSTEIN: Form.
+25 THE WITNESS: No.
+
+1 Q. Because she didn't tell you anything.
+2 A. Correct.
+3 Q. Okay. And I think she, is she the one,
+4 J.L. the one that you fought over the boyfriend?
+5 A. No, it's Jane Doe No. 2.
+6 Q. Okay. That's Jane Doe No. 2. Okay.
+7 J.L. and you are still acquaintances?
+8 A. Yes.
+9 Q. Okay. And J.L. -- and Jane Doe No. 2, she
+10 never said that anything inappropriate happened with
+11 Mr. Epstein, nor did she express any anger with you,
+12 correct?
+13 A. Correct.
+14 Q. Okay. And whatever parting you had was
+15 over, what's his name, Mr. Brook?
+16 A. Uh-huh, yes.
+17 Q. John Brook; is that correct?
+18 A. Yes.
+19 Q. All right. Did you know -- let me talk to
+20 you about Jane Doe No. 7 just a little bit. Did you
+21 know -- what did you know about -- so you had been
+22 around Jane Doe No. 7 for about a year or two before
+23 you first went to Mr. Epstein's. Did you ever know
+24 any of her boyfriends?
+25 A. No.
+
+1 BY MR. CRITTON:
+2 Q. How about Jane Doe No. 2, did she ever
+3 express any emotional trauma or concerns or
+4 psychological types of issues to you --
+5 MR. MERMELSTEIN: Form.
+6 BY MR. CRITTON:
+7 Q. -- as a result of being at Mr. Epstein's?
+8 MR. MERMELSTEIN: Form.
+9 THE WITNESS: No.
+10 BY MR. CRITTON:
+11 Q. Okay. Did she ever tell you -- well, let
+12 me strike that.
+13 Did Jane Doe No. 2, after she went to
+14 Mr. Epstein's, did she ever say anything to you?
+15 A. No.
+16 Q. Okay. Did J.L.?
+17 A. No.
+18 Q. Okay. So after J.L. went to
+19 Mr. Epstein's, she never -- after you took her
+20 there, she never said anything to you about what had
+21 happened or what had occurred?
+22 A. Correct.
+23 Q. Okay. She never told you anything
+24 inappropriate occurred.
+25 A. Correct.
+
+1 Q. Jane Doe No. 7, was she your age?
+2 A. Older.
+3 Q. And did she, did Jane Doe No. 7 ever --
+4 were you, did you do -- well, let me start again.
+5 What was Jane Doe No. 7's, what was, were
+6 her interests in school -- well, strike that.
+7 That's a bad question, too.
+8 Were you both from the same school?
+9 A. Yes.
+10 Q. Okay. [REDACTED] Palm High?
+11 A. Yes.
+12 Q. All right. And was she popular in school?
+13 A. Yes.
+14 Q. I guess it's in the eyes of the beholder,
+15 but you would have considered to be a popular
+16 person?
+17 A. Would I?
+18 Q. Have considered Jane Doe No. 7 to be like
+19 a popular person.
+20 A. Yes.
+21 Q. Okay. Very social?
+22 A. Yes.
+23 Q. Okay. And this would have been both
+24 before and after she saw Mr. Epstein?
+25 A. Yes.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749222/EFTA02749222.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749222/EFTA02749222.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f804782bd92b621698cf8f39993d8f8d20f1db84
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749222/EFTA02749222.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,601 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749222.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 13,
+ "chars": 38245,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 18.95,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 211.75199999999995,
+ 79.38
+ ],
+ [
+ 439.3874816894531,
+ 79.38
+ ],
+ [
+ 439.3874816894531,
+ 106.92
+ ],
+ [
+ 211.75199999999995,
+ 106.92
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "VIDEO-CONFERENCED AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 135.252,
+ 443.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 515.9159999999999,
+ 443.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 515.9159999999999,
+ 457.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 135.252,
+ 457.65
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 208.22998046875,
+ 93.15
+ ],
+ [
+ 434.635009765625,
+ 93.15
+ ],
+ [
+ 434.635009765625,
+ 120.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 208.22998046875,
+ 120.69
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 66.42
+ ],
+ [
+ 428.299560546875,
+ 66.42
+ ],
+ [
+ 428.299560546875,
+ 94.71209716796875
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 94.71209716796875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Related cases:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 107.41000366210938,
+ 274.59000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 224.9734344482422,
+ 274.59000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 224.9734344482422,
+ 290.4620666503906
+ ],
+ [
+ 107.41000366210938,
+ 290.4620666503906
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.856,
+ 406.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 406.2008056640625,
+ 406.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 406.2008056640625,
+ 421.3420715332031
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.856,
+ 421.3420715332031
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 140
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 78
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1005
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 138
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 5
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 892
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 137
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 303
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 132
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 244
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 108
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 269
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 133
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 1017
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 109
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 317
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 157
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 224
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 110
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 64
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 265
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 133
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 8
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749222"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749235/EFTA02749235.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749235/EFTA02749235.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..db5fe3c7c5b5d88fb504169a6ed8506f3db68ad8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749235/EFTA02749235.md
@@ -0,0 +1,443 @@
+### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA-
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+v.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+## DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, INCLUDING SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned counsel, seeks summary judgment determining that under the undisputed material facts, (1) the version of 18 U.S.C. §2255, effective 1999 to Jul. 26, 2006, the period of time during which EPSTEIN's alleged conduct occurred, applies to Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 2's claim brought pursuant to §2255 in Count III of the Second Amended Complaint [D.E. 56]; (2) Plaintiff has failed to and cannot establish a predicate act — under 18 U.S.C. §2422 as plead in her complaint, in order to state a cause of action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2005); and (3) the version of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in effect when the predicate acts allegedly were committed allow only "minors" to file suit. Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. (2010); Local Gen. Rules 7.1, and 7.5 (S.D. Fla. 2010). In support of his motion, Defendant states:
+
+### Introduction
+
+Defendant, without waiving any affirmative defense or grounds which may entitle him to summary judgment in this action or in any other actions brought by other plaintiffs
+
+Case No. 08-CV-801 19-Marra
+
+Page 2
+
+in multiple civil actions asserting §2255 and other claims against EPSTEIN, seeks summary judgment regarding the proper application of 18 U.S.C. §2255. Based on the undisputed material facts and applicable law relevant to the summary judgment sought, Defendant is entitled as a matter of law to the entry of summary judgment determining that (1) the version of 18 U.S.C. §2255, effective 1999 to Jul. 26, 2006, the period of time during which EPSTEIN's alleged conduct occurred, applies to Plaintiffs claim brought pursuant to §2255; (2) Plaintiff has not and cannot establish the requisite elements to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. §2255, which she attempts to assert in Count III of her Second Amended Complaint [D.E. 56]. In particular, the undisputed material facts show that Plaintiff has failed to and cannot establish a predicate act — under I8 U.S.C. §2422 as plead in her complaint, in order to state a cause of action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2005); and (3) the version of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in effect when the predicate acts allegedly were committed allow only "minors" to file suit. The pleadings and the discovery materials on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact establishing that EPSTEIN is entitled as a matter of law to the summary judgments sought.
+
+#### Statement of Material Facts in Support of Summary Judgment, Loc.Gen.Rule 7.5 Statement of the Case
+
+1. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 2's Second Amended Complaint [D.E. 56], dated February 27, 2009, attempts to assert three causes of action. Count I and Count II, respectively, attempt to allege state law claims under Florida law for "Sexual Assault and Battery," and "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress." Count III, which is the subject of this motion, is entitled "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 3
+
+Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422," and attempts to assert a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255. (Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 2 shall be referred to as "JD2" or "Jane" or "Jane Doe." Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint shall be referred to as "2d Am Comp," and is attached hereto as Exhibit A.).
+
+2. According to the allegations - "In or about 2004-2005, Jane Doe, then approximately 16 years old, fell into Epstein's trap and became one of his victims." [2d Am Comp, ¶8]. Plaintiff further alleges that —
+
+..., Jane Doe was recruited to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. Jane was brought to Epst in's mansion in Palm Beach. Once at the mansion, Jane was introduced to who led her up a flight of stairs to the room with the massage table. In this room, Epstein told Jane to take off her clothes and give him a massage. Jane kept her panties and bra on and complied with Epstein's instructions. Epstein wore only a towel around his waist. After a short period of time, Epstein removed the towel and rolled over exposing his penis. Epstein began to masturbate and he sexually assaulted Jane. [2d Am Comp, ¶12].
+
+After Epstein had completed the assault, Jane was then able to get dressed, leave the room and go back down the stairs. Jane was paid \$200 by Epstein. The young girl who recruited Jane was paid \$100 by Epstein for bringing Jane to him. [2d Am Comp, ¶13].
+
+3. Material to this motion, in attempting to assert a claim in Count III pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255, Plaintiff alleges in material part that —
+
+- 29. Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.
+- 30. On June 30, 2008, Epstein entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida §§796.07 and 796.03, in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case Nos. ...), for conduct involving the same plan or scheme as alleged herein.
+- 31. As to Plaintiff Jane Doe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of Florida Statute §796.07(2)(including
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 4
+
+subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) thereof), and other criminal offenses including violations of Florida Statutes §§798.02 and 800.04 (including subsections (5), (6) and (7) thereof).
+
+32. Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422.
+
+33. As a result of Epstein's violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages.
+
+4. In the "WHEREFORE" clause of Count III, Plaintiff "demands judgment against Jeffery Epstein for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), ." See 2d Am Comp, Count III, Exhibit A hereto.
+
+5. In trying to assert a violation of the federal criminal statute 18 U.S.C. 2422 as the requisite predicate act for a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a)1, Plaintiff generally tracks the language of subsection (b) of 18 U.S.C. 2422 (2004, 2005), which states in relevant part —
+
+(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years.
+
+(The amended version of §2422 increases the term of imprisonment.)
+
+(See endnote 1 hereto for full text of 18 U.S.C. §2255, the version that applied in 2004 and 2005, and the amended version effective July 27, 2006.)
+
+6. Epstein never, using a facility or means of interstate commerce, knowingly persuaded, induced or enticed JD2, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempted to do so. Deposition Testimony of JD2, taken March 3, 2010, pp.
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 5
+
+212-14. A copy of the referenced pages is attached hereto as Exhibit B. See endnote 2 for full text of 18 U.S.C. §2422.2
+
+7. JD had only one encounter with EPSTEIN in December of 2004 at his house in Palm Beach, Florida. (JD2 Deposition, p. 40, lines 18-25; p. 41, lines 1-9). According to JD2's complaint allegations and testimony, she was brought by another minor girl (Jane Doe No. 3) to EPSTEIN's Palm Beach home the one time in December of 2004. Jane Doe No. 3 picked up JD2 in her car and brought JD2 home afterward. (2d Am Comp, ¶¶10, 12-13; JD2 Deposition, 44-46). Jane Doe 3 was not a close personal friend of JD2; she was just someone JD2 went to school with. (Deposition, p. 37, lines 13-23). Jane Doe No. 3 passed a note JD2 while in high school class together, and Jane Doe No. 3 "wrote to me in class about what she, how she wanted me to go and give just old guys a massage and you get like \$200. ... ." "...it's in a place where there's a bunch of old guys and there's young girls. You don't need experience, and you just give them a massage and they pay good money just to have you massage them." (JD2 Deposition, p. 64, lines 5-25; p. 65, lines 1-16).
+
+8. JD2 never had any communications with EPSTEIN via the telephone, cell-phone, computer, e-mails, or texting. (JD2 Deposition, p. 212-13). There is no testimony or complaint allegations that JD2 ever travelled anywhere with EPSTEIN.
+
+9. JD2 was 22 years old at the time of her deposition taken on March 3, 2010. (JD2 Deposition, p. 31, lines 22-23). The original Complaint in this matter was filed on February 6, 2008. Thus, JD2 was 20 years old (or at the very least 19) at the time this suit was filed.
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra
+
+Page 6
+
+10. Interestingly, JD3 (who went to JE's home four times; was with JE only one time, but took JD2 and J.L., and drove JD4 one time) herself asserts in her testimony that despite her purportedly shocking experience with EPSTEIN that one occasion, she was willing to expose her friend, JD2, to this same "shocking, disturbing experience" she had had. (JD3 Deposition, p. 175).
+
+# Summary Judgment Standard
+
+Summary judgment is proper under Rule 56(c)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P, when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Pursuant to Rule 56(b), "a party against whom relief is sought may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for summary judgment on all or part of the claim."
+
+As stated by the Supreme Court in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986)
+
+... summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." In our view, the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be "no genuine issue as to any material fact," since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The moving party is "entitled to a judgment as a matter of law" because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.
+
+# Discussion of Law as Applied to Undisputed Material Facts Showing that EPSTEIN Is Entitled to Summary Judgment as a Matter of Law.
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 7
+
+I. The version of 18 U.S.C. \$2255 in effect at the time the purported conduct took place applies to the Plaintiff's \$2255 claim against EPSTEIN, not the version as amended and effective July 27,2006.
+
+The applicable version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 provides -
+
+# PART 1--CRIMES
+
+### CHAPTER 110--SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN § 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries
+
+(a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than \$50,000 in value.
+
+(See endnote 1 for complete statutory text, pre and post amendment.)
+
+By its own terms, 18 U.S.C. 2255(a) creates a cause of action for "a minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation ... ." See generally, v. Husband, 428 F.Supp.2d 432 (E.D. Va. 2006); v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2006); Doe v. Liberatore, 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007). The referenced statutes are all federal criminal statues contained in Title 18 of the United States Code. Thus, in order to sustain a cause of action under §2255, a plaintiff is required to prove all the elements of one of the statutory enumerated criminal predicate acts. See Gray v. Darby, 2009 WL 805435 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2005), requiring evidence to establish predicate act under 18 U.S.C. §2255 to state cause of action.
+
+I. A. The statute in effect during the time the alleged conduct occurred applies to each of the Plaintiffs claim brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 — not the amended
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 8
+
+version which became effective on July 27, 2006. See endnote 1 for complete statutory text in effect prior to July 27, 2006 and as amended.
+
+Plaintiff in her complaint asserts that the alleged conduct by EPSTEIN occurred prior to the amended version of §2255 taking effect. JD alleges 'in or about 2004-2005, Jane Doe, then approximately 16 years old," as the period of time during which the conduct at issue occurred. Based on JD2's deposition testimony, she had one encounter with EPSTEIN in December — 2004. Thus, it is undisputed Epstein's conduct occurred prior to §2255's amendment, effective July 27, 2006.
+
+Under applicable law, the statute in effect at the time of the alleged conduct applies. See U.S. v. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010); U.S. v. Renga, 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (ED. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Ferenci, 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Monk, 2009 WL 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. v. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18 2009). In each of these cases, the referenced footnote states —
+
+Prior to July 27, 2006, the last sentence in Section §2255(a) read "Any person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than \$50,000 in value." Under the civil statute, the minimum restitution amount for any violation of Section 2252 (the predicate act at issue) is \$150,000 for violations occurring after July 27, 2006 and \$50,000 for violations occurring prior to \$50,000.
+
+Even with the typo (the extra "\$50,000") at the end of the quoted sentence, it is clear that the Court applied the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct constituting one of the statutorily enumerated predicate acts, which is consistent with applicable law discussed more fully below herein.
+
+Page 9
+
+It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994):
+
+... the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence, and embodies a legal doctrine centuries older than our Republic. Elementary considerations of fairness dictate that individuals should have an opportunity to know what the law is and to conform their conduct accordingly; settled expectations should not be lightly disrupted.FN18 For that reason, the "**principle that the legal effect of conduct should ordinarily be assessed under the law that existed when the conduct took place has timeless and universal appeal.**" *Kaiser*, 494 U.S., at 855, 110 S.Ct., at 1586 (SCALIA, J., concurring). In a free, dynamic society, creativity in both commercial and artistic endeavors is fostered by a rule of law that gives people confidence about the legal consequences of their actions.
+
+FN18. See *General Motors Corp. v. Romein*, 503 U.S. 181, 191, 112 S.Ct. 1105, 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 328 (1992) ("Retroactive legislation presents problems of unfairness that are more serious than those posed by prospective legislation, because it can deprive citizens of legitimate expectations and upset settled transactions"); [Further citations omitted].
+
+It is therefore not surprising **that the antiretroactivity principle finds expression in several provisions of our Constitution. The *Ex Post Facto* Clause flatly prohibits retroactive application of penal legislation.**FN19 Article I, § 10, cl. 1, prohibits States from passing another type of retroactive legislation, laws "impairing the Obligation of Contracts." The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause prevents the Legislature (and other government actors) from depriving private persons of vested property rights except for a "public use" and upon payment of "just compensation." The prohibitions on "Bills of Attainder" in Art. I, §§ 9-10, prohibit legislatures from singling out disfavored persons and meting out summary punishment for past conduct. See, *e.g.*, *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722, 14 L.Ed.2d 484 (1965). The Due Process Clause also protects the interests in fair notice and repose that may be compromised by retroactive legislation; a justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. *Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.*, 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976).
+
+FN19. Article I contains two *Ex Post Facto* Clauses, one directed to Congress (§ 9, cl. 3), the other to the States (§ 10, cl. 1). We have construed the Clauses as applicable only to penal legislation. See *Calder v. Bull*, 3 Dall. 386, 390-391, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).
+
+These provisions demonstrate that retroactive statutes raise particular concerns. The Legislature's unmatched powers allow it to sweep away settled expectations suddenly and without individualized consideration. Its responsivity to political pressures poses a risk that it may be tempted to use retroactive legislation as a means of retribution
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 10
+
+against unpopular groups or individuals. As Justice Marshall observed in his opinion for \*\*1498 the Court in Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981), the Ex Post Facto Clause not only ensures that individuals have "fair warning" about the effect of criminal statutes, but also "restricts governmental power by restraining arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation." Id., at 28-29, 101 S.Ct., at 963-964 (citations omitted). FTC°
+
+FN20. See Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 513-514, 109 S.Ct. 706, 732, 102 L.Ed.2d 854 (1989) ("Legislatures are primarily policymaking bodies that promulgate rules to govern future conduct. The constitutional prohibitions against the enactment of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder reflect a valid concern about the use of the political process to punish or characterize past conduct of private citizens. It is the judicial system, rather than the legislative process, that is best equipped to identify past wrongdoers and to fashion remedies that will create the conditions that presumably would have existed had no wrong been committed") (STEVENS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 247, n. 3, 81 S.Ct. 1052, 1052, n. 3, 6 L.Ed.2d 246 (1961) (retroactive punitive measures may reflect "a purpose not to prevent dangerous conduct generally but to impose by legislation a penalty against specific persons or classes of persons").
+
+These well entrenched constitutional protections and presumptions against retroactive application of legislation establish that 18 U.S.C. §2255 in effect at the time of the alleged conduct applies to the instant action, and not the amended version. See endnote 1 hereto.
+
+I. B. Not only is there no clear express intent stating that the statute is to apply retroactively, but applying the current version of the statute, as amended in 2006, would be in clear violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution as it would be applied to events occurring before its enactment and would increase the penalty or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. 1. U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798).
+
+The United States Constitution provides that "[n]o Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" by Congress. U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3. A law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause if it " tappli[es] to events occurring before its enactment ... [and] disadvantage[s] the offender affected by it' by altering the
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 11
+
+definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime."
+
+Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (quoting
+
+Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)).
+
+U.S. v. Siegel,153 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11i° Cir. 1998).
+
+§2255 is contained in Title 18 of the United States Codes - "Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Part I. Crimes, Chap. 110. Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children." 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2005), is entitled Civil remedy for personal injuries, and imposes a presumptive minimum of damages in the amount of \$50,000, should Plaintiff prove any violation of the specified criminal statutes and that she suffered personal injury with actual damages sustained. Thus, the effect of the 2006 amendments, effective July 27, 2006, would be to triple the amount of the statutory minimum previously in effect during the time of the alleged acts.
+
+The statute, as amended in 2006, contains no language stating that the application is to be retroactive. Thus, there is no manifest intent that the statute is to apply retroactively, and, accordingly, the statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct is to apply. Landeraf v. USI Film Products, supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably suggest that it has any application to conduct that occurred at an earlier date."). See fn. 1 herein.
+
+This statute was enacted as part of the Federal Criminal Statutes targeting sexual predators and sex crimes against children. H.R. 3494, "Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998;" House Report No. 105-557, 11, 1998 U.S.C.A.N. 678, 679 (1998). Quoting from the "Background and Need For Legislation" portion of the House Report No. 105-557, 11-16, H.R. 3494, of which 18 U.S.C. §2255 is included, is described as "the most comprehensive package of new crimes and increased penalties
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 12
+
+ever developed in response to crimes against children, particularly assaults facilitated by computers." Further showing that §2255 was enacted as a criminal penalty or punishment, "Title II — Punishing Sexual Predators," Sec. 206, from House Report No. 105-557, 5-6, specifically includes reference to the remedy created under §2255 as an additional means of punishing sexual predators, along with other penalties and punishments. Senatorial Comments in amending §2255 in 2006 confirm that the creation of the presumptive minimum damage amount is meant as an additional penalty against those who sexually exploit or abuse children. 2006 WL 2034118, 152 Cong. Rec. \$8012- 02. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id.
+
+The cases of U.S. v. Siegel, supra (11th Cir. 1998), and U.S. v. supra (3d Cir. 1998), also support Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 would be in clear violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. In Siegel, the Eleventh Circuit found that the Ex Post Facto Clause barred application of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) to the defendant whose criminal conduct occurred before the effective date of the statute, 18 U.S.C. §3664(f)(1)(A), even though the guilty plea and sentencing proceeding occurred after the effective date of the statute. On July 19, 1996, the defendant Siegel pleaded guilty to various charges under 18 U.S.C. §371 and §1956(a)(1)(A), (conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, bank fraud, and laundering of money instruments; and money laundering). He was sentenced on March 7, 1997. As part of his sentence, Siegel was ordered to pay \$1,207,000.00 in restitution under the MVRA which became effective on April 24, 1996. Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 1229-1236. The 1996 amendments to MVRA required that the district court must order restitution in the full amount of the victim's loss without consideration of the
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra
+
+Page 13
+
+defendant's ability to pay. Prior to the enactment of the MVRA and under the former 18 U.S.C. §3664(a) of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (VWPA), Pub.l. No. 97-291, 96 Stat. 1248, the court was required to consider, among other factors, the defendant's ability to pay in determining the amount of restitution.
+
+When the MVRA was enacted in 1996, Congress stated that the amendments to the VWPA "shall, to the extent constitutionally permissible, be effective for sentencing proceedings in cases in which the defendant is convicted on or after the date of enactment of this Act [Apr. 24, 1996]." Siegel, supra at 1258. The alleged crimes occurred between February, 1988 to May, 1990. The Court agreed with the defendant's position that 1996 MVRA "should not be applied in reviewing the validity of the court's restitution order because to do so would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const. art I, §9, cl. 3."
+
+The Ex Post Facto analysis made by the Eleventh Circuit in Siegel is applicable to this action. In resolving the issue in favor of the defendant, the Court first considered whether a restitution order is a punishment. Id, at 1259. In determining that restitution was a punishment, the Court noted that §3663A(a)(1) of Title 18 expressly describes restitution as a "penalty." In addition, the Court also noted that "[a]lthough not in the context of an ex post facto determination, ... restitution is a `criminal penalty meant to have strong deterrent and rehabilitative effect.' United States v. Twiny 107 F.3d 1482, 1493 n. 12 (11th Cir.1997)." Second, the Court considered "whether the imposition of restitution under the MVRA is an increased penalty as prohibited by the Ex Post Facto Clause." Id, at 1259. In determining that the application of the 1996 MVRA would indeed run afoul of the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause, the Court agreed with the
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra
+
+Page 14
+
+majority of the Circuits that restitution under the 1996 MVRA was an increased penalty.' "The effect of the MVRA can be detrimental to a defendant. Previously, after considering the defendant's financial condition, the court had the discretion to order restitution in an amount less than the loss sustained by the victim. Under the MVRA, however, the court must order restitution to each victim in the full amount." Id, at 1260. See also U.S. v. 162 F.2d 87 (3"I Circuit 1998).
+
+In the instant cases, in answering the first question, it is clear that that imposition of a minimum amount of damages, regardless of the amount of actual damages suffered by a minor victim, is meant to be a penalty or punishment. See statutory text and House Bill Reports, cited above herein, consistently referring to the presumptive minimum damages amount under §2255 as "punishment" or "penalties." According to the Ex Post Facto doctrine, although §2255 is labeled a "civil remedy," such label is not dispositive; "if the effect of the statute is to impose punishment that is criminal in nature, the ex post facto clause is implicated." See generally, Roman Catholic of Oakland v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, at 360, citing Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 360-61 (1997). The effect of applying the 2006 version of §2255 would be to triple the amount of the presumptive minimum damages to a minor who proves the elements of her §2255 claim. The fact that a plaintiff proceeding under §2255 has to prove a violation of a criminal statute and suffer personal injury to recover damages thereunder, further supports that the imposition of a minimum amount, regardless of a victim's actual
+
+The Eleventh Circuit, in holding that "the MVRA cannot be applied to a person whose criminal conduct occurred prior to April 24, 1996," was "persuaded by the majority of districts on this issue." "Restitution is a criminal penalty carrying with it characteristics of criminal punishment." Siegel, supra at 1260. The Eleventh Circuit is in agreement with the Second, Third, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits. See U.S. v. Futrell 209 F.3d 1286, 1289-90 (11ih Cir. 2000).
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra
+
+Page 15
+
+damages sustained, is meant and was enacted as additional punishment or penalty for violation of criminal sexual exploitation and abuse of minors.
+
+Accordingly, this Court is required to apply the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal acts. Not only is there no language in the 2006 statute stating that it is to apply retroactively, but further, such application of the 2006 version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 to acts that occurred prior to its effective date would have a detrimental and punitive effect on Defendant by tripling the presumptive minimum of damages available to a plaintiff, regardless of the actual damages suffered.?
+
+I. C. As discussed above, 18 U.S.C. §2255 was enacted as part of the criminal statutory scheme to punish and penalize those who sexually exploit and abuse minors, and thus, the Ex Post Fact Clause prohibits a retroactive application of the 2006 amended version. Even if one were to argue that the statute is "civil" and the damages thereunder are "civil" in nature, under the analysis provided by the United States Supreme Court in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (1994), pertaining to civil statutes, not only is there no express intent by Congress to apply the new statute to past conduct, but also, the clear effect of retroactive application of the statute would be to increase the potential liability for past conduct from a minimum of \$50,000 to \$150,000, and thus in violation of the constitutional prohibitions against such application. As noted, 18 U.S.C. §2255 is entitled "Civil remedy for personal injuries." Notwithstanding this
+
+2 In other filed civil actions attempting to assert §2255 claims against EPSTEIN, some plaintiffs also propose that the minimum damage amount is to apply on a per violation basis; the absurdity of such position is further magnified when one considers that the presumptive damages amount was tripled to \$150,000 by the 2006 amendment. Based on some plaintiffs' position, that amount would be multiplied even further based on the number of violations (along with injury) that she could prove. Clearly, the result is an unconstitutional increase in either a penalty or civil liability.
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 16
+
+label, the statute was enacted as part of the criminal statutory scheme to punish those who sexually exploit and abuse minors. Regardless of the actual damages suffered or proven by a minor, as long as a minor proves violation of a specified statutory criminal act under §2255 and personal injury, the defendant is held liable for the statutory imposed minimum.
+
+Although there does not exist any definitive ruling of whether the damages awarded under §2255 are meant as criminal punishment or a civil damages award, Defendant is still entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies.
+
+As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,3
+
+When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the events in suit, the court's first task is to determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach. If Congress has done so, of course, there is no need to resort to judicial default rules. When, however, the statute contains no such express command, the court must determine whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, i.e., whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. If the statute would operate retroactively, our traditional presumption teaches that it does not govern absent clear congressional intent favoring such a result.
+
+Here, there is no clear expression of intent regarding the 2006 Act's application to conduct occurring well before its enactment. Clearly, however, as discussed in part B herein, the presumptive minimum amount of damages of \$150,000 was enacted as a punishment or penalty upon those who sexually exploit and abuse minors. See discussion of House Bill Reports and Congressional background above herein. The amount triples
+
+a In Landgraf the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined that statutory text in question, §102, was subject to the presumption against statutory retroactivity.
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 17
+
+the previous amount for which a defendant might be found liable, regardless of the amount of actual damages a plaintiff has suffered and proven. The new statute imposes a substantial increase in the monetary liability for past conduct.
+
+As stated in Landgraf, "the extent of a party's liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored." Courts have consistently refused to apply a statute which substantially increases a party's liability to conduct occurring before the statute's enactment. Landgraf, supra at 284-85. Even if plaintiff were to argue that retroactive application of the new statute "would vindicate its purpose more fully," even that consideration is not enough to rebut the presumption against retroactivity. Id, at 285-86. "The presumption against statutory retroactivity is founded upon sound considerations of general policy and practice, and accords with long held and widely shared expectations about the usual operation of legislation." Id.
+
+Accordingly, as a matter of law, this Court is required to apply the version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2004) in effect at the time of the alleged conduct by EPSTEIN directed to Plaintiff.
+
+#### II. Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Count M, as under the undisputed material facts, Plaintiff has failed to and can not show a violation of a requisite predicate act to sustain a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255.
+
+As matter of law, Defendant is entitled to the entry of a summary judgment in his favor on Count III - entitled "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422." In reality, Count III is an attempt to bring a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), which creates a civil remedy for violations of certain federal criminal statutes as discussed herein. The undisputed material facts and applicable law show that Plaintiff does not and cannot establish the elements required to prove her §2255 claim.
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 18
+
+As confirmed by Plaintiff in her deposition testimony, the alleged encounter with EPSTEIN took place sometime in December — 2004 at his Palm Beach, Florida mansion. The applicable version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 provides —
+
+# PART I--CRIMES
+
+# CHAPTER 110--SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN
+
+§ 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries
+
+(a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than \$50,000 in value.
+
+(See endnote 1 for complete statutory text.)
+
+By its own terms, 18 U.S.C. 2255(a) creates a cause of action for "a minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation ... ." See generally, Gray v. Darby, 2009 WL 805435, 6 (E.D.Pa.,2009)("§2255 establishes a civil remedy for personal injuries suffered as a result of the violation of specific sections of the Code [U.S.C. Title 18]. Under this section, any minor who is the victim of any of those sections may sue in federal court to recover `the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.'"); v Husband 428 F.Supp.2d 432 (E.D. Va. 2006); v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2006); Doe v. Liberatore, 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007). The referenced statutes are all federal criminal statues contained in Title 18 of the United States Code. In her complaint, Plaintiff partially tracks the language of 18 U.S.C.
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 19
+
+§2422(b) and cites generally to §2422 in an attempt to assert a claim under 18 U.S.C. §2255. (2d Am Corn, ¶30, 33-34). None of the State of Florida criminal statutes referenced by Plaintiff are a requisite predicate act required to prove a claim under 18 U.S.C. §2255. (See ¶30-31 of 2d Am Comp.).
+
+Thus, in order to sustain a cause of action under §2255, Plaintiff is required to prove all the elements of one of the statutory enumerated predicate acts. See Gray v. Darby, 2009 WL 805435 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2005), requiring evidence to establish predicate act under 18 U.S.C. §2255 to state cause of action. As noted above, Plaintiff is relying on §2422 of Title 18, and tracks the language of subsection (b) of that statute. There is no evidence whatsoever of EPSTEIN "using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, ... ."
+
+In order to show a violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), four elements must be proven: (1) use of a facility of interstate commerce; (2) to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce; (3) any individual who is younger than 18; (4) to engage in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempting to do so. U.S. v. M, 410 F.3d 1235, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Munro, 394 F.3d 865, 869 (10th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Kaye, 451 F.Supp.2d 775, 782-83 (E.D. Va. 2006). The undisputed material facts show that EPSTEIN and JD2 never communicated at any time on any subject via the telephone, intemet, texting, e-mails, or other form of electronic communication. JD2 testified that she was brought to EPSTEIN's home by another girl
+
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra Page 20
+
+(Jane Doe No. 3) that she went to school with in Palm Beach County. There is no testimony that JD2 travelled anywhere with EPSTEIN by car or otherwise. The one encounter occurred in Palm Beach, Florida at EPSTEIN's mansion. (See Statement of Facts, ¶¶6, 7, 8).
+
+There was no (1) use of a facility of interstate commerce; (2) to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce; (3) any individual who is younger than 18; (4) to engage in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempting to do so. See for e.g., U.S. v. 506 F.3d 140, 150-51 (2d Cir. 2007). In a defendant was convicted of violating §2422(b) where he initiated contact with girl he believed was a minor in an intemet chat room called "I Love Older Men," repeatedly made sexual advances toward girl and her "friend," asked them for their pictures, steered the conversation toward sexual activities, described the acts that he would engage in with them, tried to set up a meeting with both of them, and appeared for a meeting with condoms and a Viagra pill in his car. Thus, the Circuit court agreed had the requisite intent to violate § 2422(b). The Circuit Court determined that a reasonable juror could also have found that the defendant took a substantial step beyond mere preparation when he arrived at the meeting place with two condoms and a Viagra pill in his car. See also U.S. v. Munro, 394 F.3d 865, 870 (10th Cir.2005)(Defendant convicted of attempting to persuade a minor to engage in sexual acts by using computer connected to the intemet, under §2422(b), where chat room communications included defendant asking "girl" about her sexual history, her virginity, her experience wit oral sex, and the possibility of making a movie together; defendant further told "girl" about his desire to perform oral sex on her.); U.S. v. Barlow, 568 F.3d 215 (51h Cir. 2009). See
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 21
+
+also U.S. v. Kave, 451 F.Supp.2d 775, supra, where defendant engaged in lengthy "chat room" communications of a sexual nature with individual he believed was a 13 year old boy, described what he was going to do with 13 year old, and traveled to the home of the 13 year old.
+
+Thus, because the evidence (JD2's own sworn testimony) establishes that there was no violation of §2422(b), an essential element of Plaintiff's 18 U.S.0 §2255 claim asserted in Count III is missing. The claim fails as a matter of law and Defendant is entitled to the entry of summary judgment on the claim. Summary judgment is proper under Rule 56(c)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P, when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Pursuant to Rule 56(b), "a party against whom relief is sought may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for summary judgment on all or part of the claim."
+
+Thus, under the undisputed material facts and applicable law, EPSTEIN is entitled to summary judgment on Count III of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint as a matter of law. JD2's own testimony establishes that EPSTEIN never used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce her to engage in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempting to do so. 18 U.S.C. §2422(b). Under the undisputed material facts, JD2 cannot show a violation of the enumerated predicate act, §2422(b) on which she relies, in order to prove her claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255; thus, an essential element of her §2255 cannot be established, entitling Defendant to the entry of summary judgment on Count III.
+
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-= Page 22
+
+### III. The Version of 18 U.S.C. & 2255 In Effect When The Predicate Acts Alleeedly Were Committed Allowed Only "Minors" To File Suit.
+
+The Second Amended Complaint is predicated on acts that occurred in December — 2004, when JD 2 was 16 years old. (See Statement Facts above). JD2 was 22 years old at the time of her deposition on March 3, 2010. The original Complaint in this matter was filed on February 6, 2008. Thus, JD2 was 20 years old (or at least 19) at the time this suit was filed and, thus, no longer a minor. (The age of majority under both federal and state law is 18 years old. See 18 U.S.C. §2256(1), defining a "minor" as "any person under the age of eighteen years;" and §1.01, Definitions, Fla. Stat., defining "minor" to include "any person who has not attained the age of 18 years.")
+
+From 1999 to July 26, 2006, 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a) provided:
+
+Any minor who is a victim of a violation of [certain specified federal statutes] and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than \$50,000 in value.
+
+It is well settled that in interpreting a statute, the court's inquiry begins with the text and structure of the law. CBS, Inc. v. Prime Time 24 Venture, 245 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 2001) ("We begin our construction of [a statutory provision) where courts should always begin the process of legislative interpretation, and where they often should end it as well, which is with the words of the statutory provision.") (quoting Harris v. Gamer, 216 F.3d 970, 972 (11th Cir. 2000) (en bane)) (first alteration omitted). In this case, the plain text of the 2003 statute is both clear and unmistakable. It allowed only minors (or the representative of a then-minor, see Fed R. Civ. P. 17(c)) to initiate suit
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 23
+
+under § 2255. It provided only that "any minor ... may sue" and that "any minor ... shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains" as a result of the predicate acts. Id. (emphasis added). The law's use of the present tense further underscored its limited scope: It spoke of "any minor who is a victim," provided that "such minor ... shall recover" damages arising from the underlying offense, and stated that "any minor ... shall be deemed" to have sustained at least \$50,000 in damages. Id. (emphasis added). Where the statute's words are unambiguous—as the are here—the "judicial inquiry is complete." Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted)). Under the pre-July, 2006 version of the statute, only minors could initiate suit.
+
+The recent case of U.S. v. Baker, 2009 WL 4572785, \*7-8 (E.D. Tx Dec. 7, 2009), in discussing the restitution under 18 U.S.C. §2255 noted that when the statute was amended in 2006 — "Masha's Law increased the minimum damages amount from \$50,000 to \$150,000 and broadened the language of section 2255 to allow adults to recover for damages sustained while they were a minor." The plain reading of the statute makes clear that prior to the 2006 amendment, the remedy was created for the benefit of minors who suffered sexual exploitation as a result of violation of a statutorily enumerated criminal act(s).
+
+To the extent there is any ambiguity in the text—and there is none—the law's legislative history further underscores Congress's intent to limit the right of action to minors: "Current law provides for a civil remedy for personal injuries resulting from child pornography offenses. This section expands the number of sex offenses in which a minor may pursue a civil remedy for personal injuries resulting from the offense." H.R. Rep. 105-557, at 23 (1998), as reprinted in 1998 U.S.C.C.A.N. 678, 692. And perhaps
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-
+
+Page 24
+
+most telling, Congress amended § 2255 in 2006—three years after the alleged misconduct in this case supposedly took place—to make the civil action available to persons who had turned 18 by the time they filed suit:
+
+(a) In general.—Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than \$150,000 in value.
+
+18 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) (emphasis added).
+
+The contrast between the prior and 2006 versions of § 2255 is stark. The 2006 law replaces each of the prior law's uses of the term "minor" with the term "person." Where the 2006 law does refer to a "minor," it changes the prior law's present-tense references ("is") to past-tense references ("was"). And the 2006 law's new language now makes clear that, unlike the prior statute, those victimized while under the age of 18 may sue after they turn 18. Given that amendments must be interpreted "to have real and substantial effect," v. 1.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 397 (1995), there can be no doubt that Congress recognized the prior statute's strict limitations and for the first time expanded the right of action to adults.
+
+Indeed, the history of the 2006 amendments clearly shows that Congress intended to change the law, not merely to clarify it. Those amendments were made by § 707 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, 650 (2006), and are known as "Masha's Law." As Senator Kerry—the author of Masha's Law—explained:
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra
+
+Page 25
+
+What Masha's law does, and what is incorporated in here, is it changes "any minor" to "any person," so that if a minor is depicted in photographs pornographically that are distributed over the Internet, but by the time the abuser is caught, the minor is an adult, they can still recover. They cannot now, and that is ridiculous. It makes sure that recovery on the part of a minor can take place when they become an adult....
+
+Although I don't think there is any price too high to cost an individual who would take advantage of a minor, I think it is only appropriate to ... make sure that reaching the age of adulthood does not exempt someone from recovery. It is a tribute to continuing to do what this bill does, and that is look after the protection of minors and ensure that those who violate them are caught and punished and have to pay to the maximum extent.
+
+152 Cong. Rec. S8012-02 at S8016 (July 20, 2006) (statement of Sen. Kerry) (emphasis added). Courts typically give special weight to the statements of a bill's sponsor, Corley v. U.S., 129 S.Ct. 1558, 1569 (Apr. 6, 2009) ("[A] sponsor's statement to the full Senate carries considerable weight.").4 There is no basis to depart from that rule here.
+
+It thus is no answer that the pre-amended statute's limitations clause provided that "in the case of a person under a legal disability, [the complaint may be filed] not later than three years after the disability," 18 U.S.C. § 2255(6) (2003), such that the unamended version of the law implicitly must have permitted victims to sue even after they turned 18. That interpretation not only would render Masha's Law superfluous; it
+
+Similarly, the official summary prepared by the Congressional Research Service ("CRS") explained that Masha's Law Irlevises provisions allowing victims of certain sex-related crimes to seek civil remedies to: (1) allow adults as well as minors to sue for injuries; and (2) increase from \$50,000 to \$150,000 the minimum level of damages." Official Summary of Pub. Law No. 109-248 (July 27, 2006), as reprinted at I (emphasis added) (last visited May 10, 2009). Courts have long consulted official CRS summaries to assess legislative intent, see, e.g., Rettig v. Pension Ben. Guar. Coro 744 F.2d 133, 145 & n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1984); DIRECTV Inc. v. Cignarella No. Civ.A 03-2384, 2005 WL 1252261 at •7 (D.N.J. May 24, 2005); Clohessy v. St. Francis Hosp. & Healthcare No. 98-C-4818, 1999 WL 46898 •2-•3 (N.D. III. Jan. 28, 1999), and there is good reason to do so. By design, CRS summaries are intended to "objectively describe[] the measure's ... effect upon ... current law" so that Congress can make informed judgments about the impact of proposed bills. See The Library of Congress, About CRS Summary, available at (last visited May 10, 2009).
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra
+
+Page 26
+
+would make Masha's Law's internally redundant, because Masha's Law retained the "legal disability" language from the prior version of § 2255(b). See 18 U.S.C. § 2255(6) (2006). In short, the retained "legal disability" language in § 2255(b) of the 2006 statute would be entirely redundant were it construed to do implicitly what the law elsewhere did expressly. In these circumstances, the traditional rules against surplusage and redundancy apply with double force. See, e.g., Duncan v. = 533 U.S. 167, 174 (2001). The "legal disability" language in § 2255(b) should be interpreted to reference classic legal disabilities like insanity, mental disability, or imprisonment—not age.
+
+Indeed, that is precisely how Congress typically uses the term "legal disability": most federal statutes that use the term make clear that it doesn't include age. See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. § 590e ("A share or interest payable to enrollees less than eighteen years of age or under legal disability shall be paid ....") (emphasis added); id. § 783 ("Funds payable under sections 781 to 785 of this title to minors or to persons under legal disability shall be paid....") (emphasis added); id. § 1128 ("Sums payable to enrollees ... who are less than eighteen years of age or who are under a legal disability shall be paid....") (emphasis added); id. § 1253 ("Sums payable ... to enrollees ... who are less than eighteen years of age or who are under a legal disability shall be paid...") (emphasis added); id. § 1273 (same); id. § 1283 (same); id. § 1295 (same); id. § 1300a-3 (same); id. § 1300c-3 (same); id. § 1300d-7 (same); see also 38 U.S.C. § 3501.
+
+Needless to say, Congress would not have had to address age expressly in any of these statutes if the term "legal disability" necessarily included one's status as a minor; instead, Congress's mere use of the term "legal disability" already would account for a would-be plaintiff's minority status. Given the rule "against reading a text in a way that
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 27
+
+makes part of it redundant," Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (citing TRW Inc. v. Andrews 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)), and the canon that "where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning ... in the law of this country, they are presumed to have been used in that sense," Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 59 (1911), § 2255's reference to "legal disability" can only be interpreted as a reference to classic disabilities like insanity or mental incapacity, but not age.
+
+Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment determining that the applicable version of §2255 allows for a minor to pursue the remedy thereunder. JD2 was 20 years old at the time she instituted this action, no longer a minor.
+
+### Conclusion
+
+Thus, under the undisputed material facts and applicable law, Defendant is entitled to the entry of summary judgment determining that (1) the version of 18 U.S.C. §2255, effective 1999 to Jul. 26, 2006, the period of time during which EPSTEIN's alleged conduct occurred, applies to Plaintiff's claim brought pursuant to §2255; (2) Furthermore, JD2's own testimony establishes that EPSTEIN never used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce her to engage in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempting to do so. 18 U.S.C. §2422(b). Her testimony and the allegations of the complaint also show that EPSTEIN never traveled interstate with the specific intent of engaging in sexual activity with her. 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) and (e). Under the undisputed material facts, JD2 cannot show a violation of the enumerated predicate acts Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra Page 28
+
+on which she relies, in order to prove her claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255; thus, an essential element of her §2255 can not be established, entitling Defendant to the entry of summary judgment on Count III; and (3) the version of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in effect when the predicate acts allegedly were committed allow only "minors" to file suit.
+
+WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter the summary judgments sought herein. Defendant further requests an award of his attorney's fees and costs in defending this claim.
+
+> By: /s/ Robert D. Critton. Jr. ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following service list in the manner specified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this 7th day of May, 2010:
+
+Smart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ssm@sexabuseattomey.com ahorowitz(asexabuseattomey.com Counsel for Plaintiff
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 jagesq@bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M Page 29
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: Is! Robert D. Critton, Jr. ROBERT D. CR1TTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit@bc1claw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mpike@bciclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+1 18 USCA 62255 (effective 1999 to Jul. 26, 20061
+
+#### PART I--CRIMES CHAPTER 110-SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN
+
+### § 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries
+
+(a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c1 2242, 2243 2251 2251A 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than \$50,000 in value.
+
+(b) Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in the case of a person under a legal disability, not later than three years after the disability.
+
+### CREDIT(S)
+
+(Added Pub.L. 99-500, Title I, & 101(b) (Title VII, § 703(a)I, Oct. 18, 1986, 100 Stat. 1783-75, and amended Pub.L. 99-591, Title I, & 101(b) (Title VII,
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra
+
+Page 30
+
+§ 703(a)], Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 3341-75; Pub.L. 105-314, Title VI. § 605, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2984.)
+
+# 18 U.S.C. §2255, as amended 2006
+
+Effective July 27, 2006
+
+### PART I-CRIMES
+
+# CHAPTER 110-SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN
+
+## § 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries
+
+(a) In general.—Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422 or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than \$150,000 in value.
+
+(b) Statute of limitations.--Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in the case of a person under a legal disability, not later than three years after the disability.
+
+## CREDIT(S)
+
+(Added Pub.L. 99-500, Title I, 4 101(b) [Title VII, § 703(a)], Oct. 18, 1986, 100 Stat. 1783-75, and amended Pub.L. 99-591, Title I, 4 101(b) [Title VII, § 703(a)], Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 3341-75; Pub.L. 105-314, Title VI, § 605, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2984; Publ.. 109-248, Title VII, 4 707(b), (c), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 650.)
+
+### 2 CHAPTER 117-TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND RELATED CRIMES
+
+Current through P.L. 107-377 (End) approved 12-19-02
+
+# § 2422. Coercion and enticement
+
+(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-M
+
+Page 31
+
+(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.
+
+As amended, Apr. 30, 2003. (In effect during 2004 — 2005).
+
+§ 2422. Coercion and enticement
+
+(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
+
+(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years.
+
+Note: The amendment to the statute increased punishment that could be imposed for a violation thereof.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749235/EFTA02749235.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749235/EFTA02749235.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dcb1e860820338153375f3f48c3e6e2af5e53e2c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749235/EFTA02749235.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1664 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749235.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 31,
+ "chars": 63012,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 14.77,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 413.60565185546875,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 413.60565185546875,
+ 98.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 98.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, \nINCLUDING SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 123.01200000000001,
+ 294.03
+ ],
+ [
+ 494.37176513671875,
+ 294.03
+ ],
+ [
+ 494.37176513671875,
+ 323.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 123.01200000000001,
+ 323.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Introduction",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 275.4,
+ 639.09
+ ],
+ [
+ 341.6332702636719,
+ 639.09
+ ],
+ [
+ 341.6332702636719,
+ 653.3035125732422
+ ],
+ [
+ 275.4,
+ 653.3035125732422
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Statement of Material Facts in Support of Summary Judgment, Loc.Gen.Rule 7.5 \nStatement of the Case",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 113.83200000000001,
+ 530.55
+ ],
+ [
+ 502.9045715332031,
+ 530.55
+ ],
+ [
+ 502.9045715332031,
+ 558.0635223388672
+ ],
+ [
+ 113.83200000000001,
+ 558.0635223388672
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Summary Judgment Standard",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 233.784,
+ 227.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 381.5326232910156,
+ 227.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 381.5326232910156,
+ 242.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 233.784,
+ 242.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Discussion of Law as Applied to Undisputed Material Facts Showing \nthat EPSTEIN Is Entitled to Summary Judgment as a Matter of Law.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 127.29599999999999,
+ 652.86
+ ],
+ [
+ 490.8380126953125,
+ 652.86
+ ],
+ [
+ 490.8380126953125,
+ 682.4830169677734
+ ],
+ [
+ 127.29599999999999,
+ 682.4830169677734
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PART 1--CRIMES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 110.16,
+ 167.67000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.96424865722656,
+ 167.67000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.96424865722656,
+ 182.4735107421875
+ ],
+ [
+ 110.16,
+ 182.4735107421875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CHAPTER 110--SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN \n\u00a7 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 110.16,
+ 179.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 499.1412658691406,
+ 179.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 499.1412658691406,
+ 207.603515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 110.16,
+ 207.603515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "II. Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Count M, as under the \nundisputed material facts, Plaintiff has failed to and can not show a violation of \na requisite predicate act to sustain a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. \u00a72255.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 118.116,
+ 502.20000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 501.5014343261719,
+ 502.20000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 501.5014343261719,
+ 543.4335174560547
+ ],
+ [
+ 118.116,
+ 543.4335174560547
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PART I--CRIMES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 110.16,
+ 172.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 207.1123504638672,
+ 172.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 207.1123504638672,
+ 188.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 110.16,
+ 188.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CHAPTER 110--SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF \nCHILDREN",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 110.16,
+ 185.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 470.439208984375,
+ 185.49
+ ],
+ [
+ 470.439208984375,
+ 215.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 110.16,
+ 215.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "III. The Version of 18 U.S.C. & 2255 In Effect When The Predicate Acts \nAlleeedly Were Committed Allowed Only \"Minors\" To File Suit.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 116.892,
+ 89.91
+ ],
+ [
+ 497.3327331542969,
+ 89.91
+ ],
+ [
+ 497.3327331542969,
+ 117.73297119140625
+ ],
+ [
+ 116.892,
+ 117.73297119140625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Conclusion",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 278.46000000000004,
+ 378.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 336.4864196777344,
+ 378.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 336.4864196777344,
+ 392.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 278.46000000000004,
+ 392.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PART I--CRIMES \nCHAPTER 110-SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 107.1,
+ 414.72
+ ],
+ [
+ 511.79107666015625,
+ 414.72
+ ],
+ [
+ 511.79107666015625,
+ 441.6870422363281
+ ],
+ [
+ 107.1,
+ 441.6870422363281
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "\u00a7 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 126.68399999999998,
+ 454.4100000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 346.7484130859375,
+ 454.4100000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 346.7484130859375,
+ 468.3170471191406
+ ],
+ [
+ 126.68399999999998,
+ 468.3170471191406
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CREDIT(S)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 126.68399999999998,
+ 656.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 189.30426025390625,
+ 656.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 189.30426025390625,
+ 670.4470367431641
+ ],
+ [
+ 126.68399999999998,
+ 670.4470367431641
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "18 U.S.C. \u00a72255, as amended 2006",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.856,
+ 140.13
+ ],
+ [
+ 408.12530517578125,
+ 140.13
+ ],
+ [
+ 408.12530517578125,
+ 155.18701171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.856,
+ 155.18701171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PART I-CRIMES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 181.44
+ ],
+ [
+ 354.1096496582031,
+ 181.44
+ ],
+ [
+ 354.1096496582031,
+ 195.3170166015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 195.3170166015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CHAPTER 110-SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 193.59
+ ],
+ [
+ 510.6676330566406,
+ 193.59
+ ],
+ [
+ 510.6676330566406,
+ 208.447021484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 208.447021484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "\u00a7 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 117.50399999999999,
+ 213.03000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 338.0759582519531,
+ 213.03000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 338.0759582519531,
+ 227.5670166015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 117.50399999999999,
+ 227.5670166015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CREDIT(S)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 117.50399999999999,
+ 429.29999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 180.6742706298828,
+ 429.29999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 180.6742706298828,
+ 443.9470520019531
+ ],
+ [
+ 117.50399999999999,
+ 443.9470520019531
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "2 CHAPTER 117-TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND \nRELATED CRIMES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 555.6600000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.6798706054688,
+ 555.6600000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.6798706054688,
+ 583.8170471191406
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 583.8170471191406
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "\u00a7 2422. Coercion and enticement",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 122.4,
+ 607.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 290.7071838378906,
+ 607.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 290.7071838378906,
+ 622.4470520019531
+ ],
+ [
+ 122.4,
+ 622.4470520019531
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 75
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 37
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 72
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 99
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 69
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 64
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 74
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 60
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 64
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 95
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 41
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 83
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 40
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 82
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 97
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 40
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749235"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749266/EFTA02749266.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749266/EFTA02749266.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a3161f898cb5312e98d769b221df1f222a376ee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749266/EFTA02749266.md
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+## EXHIBIT A
+
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRia
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+Vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+AFFIDAVIT OF J.
+
+STATE OF FLORDA ) )SS COUNTY OF BROWARD )
+
+BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared J. Esq., having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says:
+
+1. I have reviewed the Motion for Protective Order related to the deposition of Story Cowles, and contrary to the assertions in that Motion there are many reasons I wish to depose Story Cowles to ask him questions that could not possibly be protected by privilege.
+
+2. Story Cowles visited Epstein 159 times between 7/14/08 and 2/8/09, while Epstein was incarcerated in the Palm Beach County Detention facility. (See PBD Department of Corrections Official Visitor Logs attached here to as Exhibit I)
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAIJOHNSON
+
+3. Many times, Story Cowles was visiting Epstein while another third party visitor was present, such as Epstein co-conspirators and
+
+4. According to jail logs, Story Cowles visited Epstein in jail by stating that he was either a "Paralegal" an "Attorney" or "Public Defender."
+
+5. Through information and belief, Story Cowles is not an attorney, does not have any paralegal training and is not a Florida Licensed Paralegal.
+
+6. Numerous witnesses have testified that Story Cowles is boyfriend and has been such for well over one year.
+
+7. At one point, several attorneys who represent Plaintiffs in related actions, including myself, were trying to serve (known as Epstein's main coconspirator) for deposition, and it seemed that she was intentionally avoiding service.
+
+8. Another attorney discussed with Mr. Goldberger that he would like to depose Story Cowles to learn of whereabouts, at which time Mr. Goldberger indicated that he could have produced which would eliminate the need for Story Cowles's deposition.
+
+9. At that point in time, I did not know Mr. Cowles full role or involvement with Jeffrey Epstein, and as long as testified truthfully and completely then there would be no need for Mr. Cowles testimony.
+
+10. Rather than testifying, , like Mr. Epstein and took the 5th on every substantive question just as she was instructed to do
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV40119-MARRa
+
+by her attorney, Bruce Reinhart, and she provided no substantive information to Plaintiffs.
+
+11. Epstein's pilot, Larry Visoski, testified that Story Cowles actually worked with/for Mr. Epstein at the Florida Science Foundation where Mr. Cowles kept an office.
+
+12. Epstein's house manager, Janusz Banaziak, testified that Story Cowles worked for Epstein at Epstein's home.
+
+13. Story Cowles has represented to Jeffrey Epstein's probation officer that he is Epstein's assistant, not a paralegal at a law firm. (See Excerpts from the voluminous Probation File of Jeffrey Epstein attached hereto as Exhibit II)
+
+14. Story Cowles communicates to Epstein's probation officer, on Epstein's behalf, from his private email and the cell phone number Jeffrey Epstein provided to Probation comes back registered to Story Cowles. (See Exhibit II)
+
+15. Story Cowles through information and belief was made to sign a confidentiality agreement with his boss, Jeffrey Epstein, and that is consistent with Epstein's way of making all of his employees sign a confidentiality agreement.
+
+16. Story Cowles is at Epstein's house almost every day of the week with or Epstein or both.
+
+17. sole employment is working for Epstein, and Story Cowles is her boyfriend that has spent nights with her, gone to parties with her, talked privately with her and with and he has even taken a trip around the world with
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ [REDACTED]
+
+18. Story Cowles has communicated regularly with other people close to Epstein, such as [REDACTED]; he undoubtedly has relevant and non-privileged information related to Epstein.
+
+19. Story Cowles frequently visits Epstein's house and knows of the visitors and other potential witnesses that have stayed with or visited Epstein in the past two years because he has personally observed and interacted with the visitors.
+
+20. His deposition is not being taken to harass nor intimidate nor to attempt to circumvent a privilege, and it is only being set in good faith and for the purpose of obtaining meaningful and relevant testimony, which may be the only non-5th amendment testimony available to Plaintiffs.
+
+FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
+
+![]()SWORN TO and SUBSCRIBED before me this the 7th day of May 2010, by [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], Esq., who is personally known to me, at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.
+
+![]()My commission expires:
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749266/EFTA02749266.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749266/EFTA02749266.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1a7e244c2afb63e3fea5fb990679aa0b5e76b557
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749266/EFTA02749266.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749266.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 5,
+ "chars": 4863,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 5.24,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_4_Picture_103.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "EXHIBIT A",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 187.272,
+ 349.4742126464844
+ ],
+ [
+ 434.8650817871094,
+ 349.4742126464844
+ ],
+ [
+ 434.8650817871094,
+ 406.1005554199219
+ ],
+ [
+ 187.272,
+ 406.1005554199219
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 204.82800000000003,
+ 70.3125
+ ],
+ [
+ 413.5299987792969,
+ 70.3125
+ ],
+ [
+ 413.5299987792969,
+ 98.42498779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 204.82800000000003,
+ 98.42498779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749266"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749266/_page_4_Picture_103.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749266/_page_4_Picture_103.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ae1d365a6d78ecbdc9b5dde603dee7eb18c33a1f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749266/_page_4_Picture_103.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:8ce7db40c53b7ea38ef820922d4970582ae3ec481253b9ef4129974e9211a729
+size 11699
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/EFTA02749271.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/EFTA02749271.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..faa0d299a51a77b86909586b3eab466eb2c25dbe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/EFTA02749271.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1925 @@
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+# EXHIBIT I Part 1 of 3
+
+# Visitor Information For Inmate : JEFF EPSTEIN
+
+02/26/09
+
+| Inmate | Cell | Date | Period | Child | Visitor(s) | Relation | Identification (DL/SSN/Address) | City / Comment |
+|--------------------|------|----------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|----------------|
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 07/03/08 | 2 | 0 [REDACTED] P VISOSKI J IGOR V ZINOVIEV | FRND | 1131 PINE POINT RD WPB, FL. 15 KINGLET AVE MARLBORO, NJ | 02-05-60 | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 07/05/08 | 4 | 0 [REDACTED] P VISOSKI J IGOR V ZINOVIEV | FRND | 1131 PINE POINT RD WPB, FL. 15 KINGLET AVE MARLBORO, NJ | 02-05-60 | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 07/12/08 | 4 | 0 [REDACTED] P VISOSKI J IGOR V ZINOVIEV | FRND | 1131 PINE POINT RD WPB, FL. 15 KINGLET AVE MARLBORO, NJ | 02-05-60 | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 07/12/08 | 4 | 0 [REDACTED] P VISOSKI J IGOR V ZINOVIEV | FRND | 1131 PINE POINT RD WPB, FL. 15 KINGLET AVE MARLBORO, NJ | 02-05-60 | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 07/17/08 | 2 | 0 ROGER C SCHANK IGOR ZINOVIEW JEAN RENE [REDACTED] VISOSKI | FRND | 3784 SE OLD ST. LUCIE BL. STUAR 15 KINGLET AVE N.J. 358 ELBRIOL WAY PALM BEACH PAS | 03-12-46 12-12-2007 | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 07/19/08 | 4 | 0 [REDACTED] VISOSKI | FR | 1131 PINE POINT RD WPB 2-5-60 301 E 66 ST 8D' | 2-21-85 | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 07/24/08 | 2 | 0 [REDACTED] IGOR V ZINOVIEV | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 56TH ST #14G NEW YORK, N | 02-21-85 | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 07/26/08 | 2 | 0 [REDACTED] IGOR V ZINOVIEV | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 56TH ST #14G NEW YORK, N | 02-21-85 | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 07/31/08 | 2 | 0 [REDACTED] IGOR V ZINOVIEV | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 56TH ST #14G NEW YORK, N | 02-21-85 | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 08/02/08 | 4 | 0 [REDACTED] IGOR V ZINOVIEV | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 56TH ST #14G NEW YORK, N | 02-21-85 | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 08/07/08 | 2 | 0 [REDACTED] IGOR V ZINOVIEV | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 56TH ST #14G NEW YORK, N | 02-21-85 | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 08/07/08 | 4 | 0 [REDACTED] MARCINKOVA NADIA | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 56TH ST #14G NEW YORK, N | 02-21-85 | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 08/09/08 | 4 | 0 [REDACTED] DOUGLAS A SCHOETTL | FRND | 243 RIVERSIDE DR #1005 NEW YOR | 02-21-85 | |
+| [REDACTED] JEFFREY | TM | 08/14/08 | 1 | 0 [REDACTED] P VISOSKI | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 56TH ST #14G NEW YORK, N | 02-21-85 | |
+| [REDACTED] JEFFREY | TM | 08/16/08 | 4 | 0 [REDACTED] IGOR ZINOVIEV | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 151 KINGLET AVE. MARLBORO, NJ | 02-21-85 | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 08/21/08 | 2 | 0 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] VISOSKI JR | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 66TH ST 314G/NY/NY | 02-21-85 | |
+| | | | | 0 [REDACTED] JEAN LUC BRUNEL | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 66TH ST 314G/NY/NY | 02-21-85 | |
+
+# Visitor Information For Inmate : JEFF EPSTEIN
+
+92/26/09-
+
+| Inmate | Cell | Date | Period | Child | Visitor(s) | Relation | Identification (DL/SSN/Address) | City / Comment |
+|------------------|------|----------|--------|-------|------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 08/23/08 | 4 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 66TH ST 314G/NY/NY | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 08/28/08 | 2 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 66TH ST 314G/NY/NY 15 KINGLET AVE/MARLBORO/NJ | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 08/30/08 | 4 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 66TH ST 314G/NY/NY 15 KINGLET AVE/MARLBORO/NJ | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 09/04/08 | 2 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 66TH ST 314G/NY/NY 15 KINGLET AVE/MARLBORO/NJ | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 09/06/08 | 3 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 66TH ST 314G/NY/NY 1131 PINE POINT ROAD | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 09/06/08 | 4 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 66TH ST 314G/NY/NY 1131 PINE POINT ROAD WPB | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 09/11/08 | 2 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 66TH ST 314G/NY/NY 15 KINGLET AVE MARLBORO,NJ | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 09/13/08 | 4 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 66TH ST 314G/NY/NY 15 KINGLET AVE MARLBORO,NJ | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 09/13/08 | 4 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 66TH ST 314G/NY/NY 15 KINGLET AVE MARLBORO,NJ | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 09/13/08 | 4 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 66TH ST 314G/NY/NY 15 KINGLET AVE MARLBORO,NJ | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 09/18/08 | 2 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 66TH ST 314G/NY/NY 15 KINGLET AVE MARLBORO,NJ | 02-21-85 |
+| PSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 09/20/08 | 4 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY | 02-21-85 |
+| PSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 09/25/08 | 2 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY 301 E 66 ST 314G NEW YORK, NY 243 RIVERSIDE DR #1002 NY,NY | 02-21-85 |
+| PSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 09/27/08 | 4 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY | 02-21-85 |
+| PSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 10/02/08 | 2 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY SMAE AS ABOVE | 02-21-85 |
+| PSTEIN, JEFFREY | TM | 10/04/08 | 4 | 0 | [REDACTED] | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY | |
+
+Page: 2
+
+11Wil:
+
+### Visitor Information For inmate 02/26/09 : JEFF EPSTEIN
+
+| Inmate | | Cell | | | Date | | Period | Child Visitor(s) | Relation | Identification (DL/SSN/Address) | City / Comment |
+|------------------|--|------|------|--|----------|------|--------|------------------|----------|---------------------------------|----------------------|
+| | | TM | Date | | TM | Date | | | | | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 10/09/08 | | 2 | 0 | | | |
+| | | | | | | | | SARA | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY | 02-21-85 |
+| | | | | | | | | | FRND | 301 E 66TH ST APT14G NEW YORK | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 10/11/08 | | 4 | 0 | | | |
+| | | | | | | | | SARA | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY | 02-21-85 |
+| | | | | | | | | | FRND | 301 E 66TH ST APT14G NEW YORK | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 10/19/08 | | 2 | 0 | | | |
+| | | | | | | | | SARA | FRND | 301 E 66 ST 8D' NEW YORK, NY | 02-21-85 |
+| | | | | | | | | | FRND | 301 E 66TH ST APT14G NEW YORK | 02-21-85SPECIAL VISI |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 10/26/08 | | 2 | 0 | | | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 10/31/08 | | 5 | 0 | | | |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 11/02/08 | | 2 | 0 | | | 02-21-85SPECIAL VISI |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 11/06/08 | | 2 | 0 | | | 02-21-85SPECIAL VISI |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 11/13/08 | | 1 | 0 | | | 02-21-85SPECIAL VISI |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 11/20/08 | | 2 | 0 | | | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 11/27/08 | | 2 | 0 | | | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 12/04/08 | | 2 | 0 | | | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 12/11/08 | | 2 | 0 | | | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 12/18/08 | | 2 | 0 | | | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 12/27/08 | | 4 | 0 | | | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 12/28/08 | | 2 | 0 | | | 02-21-85 |
+| EPSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 01/03/09 | | 1 | 0 | | | 02-21-85 |
+| PSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 01/04/09 | | 2 | 0 | | | 02-21-85 |
+| PSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 01/10/09 | | 4 | 0 | | | 02-21-85 |
+| PSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 01/11/09 | | 2 | 0 | | | 02-21-85 |
+| PSTEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 01/17/09 | | 4 | 0 | | | 02-21-85 |
+| JEFFREY | | | | | 01/18/09 | | 2 | 0 | | | 5-25-79 |
+| JEFFREY | | | | | 01/24/09 | | 4 | 0 | | | 2-21-85 |
+| JEFFREY | | | | | 01/25/09 | | 2 | 0 | | | 2-21-85 |
+| JEFFREY | | | | | 01/31/09 | | 4 | 0 | | | 2-21-85 |
+| JEFFREY | | | | | 02/01/09 | | 2 | 0 | | | 2-21-85 |
+| JEFFREY | | | | | 02/07/09 | | 4 | 0 | | | 2-21-85 |
+| JETEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 02/08/09 | | 2 | 0 | | | 2-21-85 |
+| JETEIN, JEFFREY | | | | | 02/14/09 | | 4 | 0 | | | 2-21-85 |
+| JEFFREY | | | | | 02/15/09 | | 2 | 0 | | | 2-21-85 |
+| JEFFREY | | | | | 02/22/09 | | 2 | 0 | | | 2-21-85 |
+| | | | | | | | | | FRND | 301 E. 66TH ST. APT14G N.Y. | 2-21-85 |
+| | | | | | | | | | FRND | 301 E. 66TH ST. APT14G N.Y. | |
+| | | | | | | | | | FRND | 301 E. 66TH ST. APT14G N.Y. | |
+| | | | | | | | | | FRND | 301 E. 66TH ST. APT14G N.Y. | |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE CENTRAL CONTROL
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|----------|
+| 06-30-08 | 1955 | Turney, Lexine | V-3 | C-dorm (AA) | 2105 |
+| 6-30-08 | 2000 | Sherry, Erik | W- | C-dorm | 2105 |
+| 6-30-08 | 2000 | Damato, Brian | V-5 | J/k dorm | 2105 |
+| 6-30-08 | 2000 | Collins, Hilda | V-11 | C-dorm (AA) | 2105 |
+| 7-1-08 | 055 | Wilbed, Eve Lyn (Trinity) | PBSO | Q-Bldg | 2105 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0614 | Green, Elizabeth | PBSO | Q-Bldg | 1109 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0642 | King, Debbie | PBSO | Q-Bldg | 1434 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0725 | West, Michael | PBSO | Drug farm | 1535 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0726 | Arthur, Troy | PBSO | Drug farm | 1600 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0728 | Caitlin, Bronstein | PBSO | Drug farm | 1059 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0732 | Gloria Alham | PBSO | Drug farm | 1610 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0742 | Garcy, Gybson | PBSO | Drug farm | 1600 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0744 | Sutin, Adams | PBSO | Drug farm | 1600 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0744 | Susan, Wilkoff | PBSO | Drug farm | 1710 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0714 | John Habicht (Trinity) | PBSO | Drug farm | 1620 |
+| 7-1-08 | 749 | Patricia Elderman | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1510 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0955 | Chevelle Hytower-SAAP | PBSO | Drug farm | 1600 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0809 | Robert Humes- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1710 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0810 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1650 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0850 | Darren Indyke- Attorney | L-3 | School Calssroom. | 1132 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0853 | Tenecia Sproull- Clerical | PBSO | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special Mgmt). | 1047 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0855 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Blood Drive. | 0959 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0907 | Larry Ellis- ESS | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1740 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0935 | [REDACTED] - Juvenile Probation Officer | V-3 | T-Control | 0930 |
+| 7-1-08 | 0948 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | V-3 | I/M: [REDACTED], Quentyne (M-Dorm). | 0954 |
+| 7-1-08 | 1120 | Jerry M. Deamid Attorney | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 0950 |
+
+*CENTRAL*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|----------|
+| 07-1-08 | 1200 | Angeliki Weissinger- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | |
+| 07-1-08 | 1306 | ██████ Varju- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1525 |
+| 07-1-08 | 1417 | Sarah Korn- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1710 |
+| 07-1-08 | 1417 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1710 |
+| 07-1-08 | 1445 | Chaplain Bannister- | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1541 |
+| 7-1-08 | 1451 | G. Scott Penney- Public Defender | PBSO | on the compound. | 1600 |
+| 7-1-08 | 1506 | Darren Indyke- Attorney | L-4 | IM: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special Mgmt). | 1945 |
+| 10/15/08 | 1415 | Tein Michael (Attorney) | L-1 | "entered to see inmate Epstein Jeffrey" | 1820 |
+| 7-1-08 | 1623 | Lewis Guy | L-2 | "T-special" | 1820 |
+| 7-1-08 | 1620 | Thomas Doherty (Facility) | PBSO | on compound to J/k | 1650 |
+| 7/1/08 | 1845 | Licata Evan (Clergy) | C-3 | Church services | 1855 |
+| 7/1/08 | 1845 | Parker Deborah | C-4 | church services | 1855 |
+| 7/1/08 | 1845 | Barr Wallace | C-5 | Church services | 200 |
+| 7/1/08 | 1855 | Manthey Gabriel | C-5 | R-dorm (bible study) | |
+| 7/1/08 | 2000 | Alexander Stephen | V-3 | T-special | 2055 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 540-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 6 of 52
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|---------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 7-02-08 | 13:23 | BRUCE E. REIDHARD (AMY) | L-2 | T-Spec. (Epstein, J.) | 1420 |
+| 7-02-08 | 13:44 | MR. Blitzer (Medical) | V-1 | Medical | 1650 |
+| 7-02-08 | 1349 | MR. Ciccone (DDC) | V-2 | Medical | 1437 |
+| 7-02-08 | 1408 | MS. Wally (DAF) | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1650 |
+| 7-02-08 | 1408 | MS. Koen (DAF) | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1650 |
+| 7-02-08 | 1408 | MR. Humes (SAAP) | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1650 |
+| 7-02-08 | 1421 | MR. Shull (AMY) | L-3 | F.E. G-Dorms | 1650 |
+| 7-02-09 | 1432 | Detective Wilson (Delaway P.O.) | V-3 | C-Dorm I/M Schmier, S. | 1500 |
+| 7-02-08 | 1508 | MS. Sanchez (AMY) | L-2 | T-Spec. I/M Epstein, J. | 1459 |
+| 7-02-08 | 1510 | MR. Lumpkin (T-netix) | PBSD | SA & SA-Dorms | 1730 |
+| 7-02-08 | 1552 | MR. Tein (AMY) | L-2 | T-Spec. Epstein, J | 1735 |
+| 7-02-08 | 1552 | Mr. Lewis (AMY) | L-3 | T-Spec. Epstein, J | 1807 |
+| 7-02-08 | 1748 | MR. KARYE (TEACHER) | V1 | Doub FARM | 1807 |
+| 7-02-08 | 1900 | SULTAN BARRISTER (CLERKY) | PBSD | Doub FARM | 1935 |
+| 7-02-08 | 1950 | MS. MARSHALL AO | V2 | Doub FARM | 1905 |
+| 7-02-08 | 1950 | MS. COHEN AO | V3 | Doub FARM | 2005 |
+| 7-02-08 | 1950 | MS. PATICO AO | V4 | Doub FARM | 2005 |
+| 7-02-08 | 1950 | MR. RENES AO | V5 | Doub FARM | 2105 |
+| 7-02-08 | 00:45 | Evelyn Wilford | PBSD | Trinity - Quebec | 2105 |
+| 7-02-08 | 00:50 | Curtis Pinkney | PBSD | Trinity - Quebec | 1015 |
+| 7-02-08 | 06:40 | Doubly Keny | PBSD | Trinity - Quebec | 1057 |
+| 7-02-08 | 06:58 | Tim Barden | PBSD | SAAP | 1430 |
+| 7-02-08 | 06:08 | Elizabeth Green | PBSD | Criminal Reg. | 0/50 |
+| 7-02-08 | 07:19 | Arthur Iron | PBSD | Trinity St. J. | 1438 |
+| 7-02-08 | 07:30 | Brustler Caffein | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1438 |
+| 7-02-08 | 07:48 | Imm. Jo. M. | PBSD | S.A.A.R. | 1438 |
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | STOCKADE | WEST COUNTY DETENTION | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | DRUG FARM | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------|----------|-----------------------|-------------------------------|-----------|----------|
+| | | | | | | | |
+| 07-02-08 | 0045 | Evelyn W. Isoed (Trinity) | | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | | 11/10 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0400 | Curtis Pinkney (Trinity) | | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | | 1330 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0624 | Liz Green (Trinity) | | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | | 1430 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0652 | Jeffrey Galeia (Swanson) | | PBSO | Canteen | | 1212 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0652 | Indiea Chiollo (Swanson) | | PBSO | Canteen | | 1212 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0655 | Latoya Williams (Swanson) | | PBSO | Canteen | | 1212 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0659 | Betzi Codeno (Swanson) | | PBSO | Canteen | | 1212 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0723 | Archus Troy (SAAP) | | PBSO | Canteen | | 0714 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0725 | Gary Gibson (DATA) | | PBSO | Drug Falen | | 1602 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0730 | Cathin Bronstein (DATA) | | PBSO | Drug Falen | | 1602 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0735 | Gloria | | PBSO | Drug Falen | | 1602 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0736 | Michael West (SAAP) | | PBSO | Drug Falen | | 1602 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0736 | Terey Garves (SAAP) | | PBSO | Drug Falen | | 1602 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0744 | Chevelle Hytower (SAAP) | | PBSO | Drug Falen | | 1705 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0744 | Angeliki, Weissinger (DATA) | | PBSO | Drug Falen | | 1705 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0746 | Patricia Edelman (DATA) | | PBSO | Drug Falen | | 1803 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0800 | Ms. Canden (Perbation) | | PASO | Drug Falen | | |
+| 07-02-08 | 0800 | [REDACTED] (SAAP) | | PASO | Drug Falen | | |
+| 07-02-08 | 0816 | Mr. Melina (DRY) | | PASO | A & M-Barrow / Volious Elm's | | 1730 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0855 | Ms. Emilean (Trinity) | | PBSO | Q-Brubiny | | 921 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0859 | Ms. Sea Bower (DRY) | | PBSO | T-Z A-Borns / Volious Elm's | | 1620 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0938 | Mr. Byler (State Dry) | | N- | S-A-Born Drug T; | | 951 |
+| 07-02-08 | 0857 | Mr. Tracy (Dry) | | PASO | F-Born | | 1018 |
+| 07-02-08 | 1000 | Ms. Newby (Trinity) | | PBSO | Q-Brubiny | | 1929 |
+| 07-02-08 | 1158 | Mr. Katz (Cherysh) | | C- | T-Born / Elm & Alei-T | | 1201 |
+
+**CENTRAL CONTROL**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|--------|---------|------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/3/08 | 7:50 | Chevelle Huttower | PBSD | SAP | 9:28 |
+| 7/3/08 | 7:45 | Darren Andyke | V3 | Public Defender | 9:40 |
+| 7/3/08 | 7:53 | Susan Welke | PBSD | Drug Farm | 14:40 |
+| 7/3/08 | 8:59 | Lindy Hawthorn (Drug) | V4 | Drug Farm | 11:39 |
+| 7/3/08 | 9:00 | Gail Bremner | V5 | Drug Farm | 11:39 |
+| 7/3/08 | 9:19 | Lindsay Hanson (PD) | PBSD | L/M | 10:00 |
+| 7/3/08 | 9:28 | Ade Griffin (PD) | PBSD | Fan Tockm | 10:31 |
+| 7/3/08 | 9:34 | Robert Swisher (Air Freshner per.) | V3 | All over, companion | 10:25 |
+| 7/3/08 | 10:06 | Mirlande Osting (Trinity) | PBSD | RB/dg | 10:20 |
+| 7/3/08 | 10:09 | Shenette Huttower | PBSD | Drug Farm | 11:04 |
+| 7/3/06 | 11:24 | C Maussally (Processor server) | V3 | RB | 11:33 |
+| 7/3/08 | 12:17 | Filsaime (PD) | PBSD | GM, Dorm | 10:45 |
+| 7/3/08 | 13:50 | Lopez (Smop) | PBSD | M Dorm | 14:58 |
+| 7/3/08 | 13:45 | Susan Hendricks | PBSD | T-Dorm | 14:49 |
+| 7/3/08 | 13:45 | Guangzhou, Bin | L-1 | T Dorm | 14:49 |
+| 7/3/08 | 14:06 | Douglas Frew | V4 | B Dorm | 15:56 |
+| 7/3/08 | 14:08 | Paulo Gonzalez | PBSD | Drug Farm | 15:58 |
+| 7/3/08 | 14:08 | Humes, Robert | PBSD | Drug Farm | 16:52 |
+| 7/3/08 | 14:08 | Jessica Wally | PBSD | Drug Farm | 16:45 |
+| 7/3/08 | 14:08 | Sarah Korn | PBSD | Drug Farm | 16:55 |
+| 7/3/08 | 14:35 | Karen Mathorly (Uulcan) | V5 | R Building | 16:57 |
+| 7/3/08 | 16:15 | Joshua Lerou (P.D.) | PBSD | RB/Dorm / Wing-Field David | 17:39 |
+| 7/3/08 | 17:45 | Stephen Alexander (Psychologist) | V4 | T/Spec (IM/IS/Kennedy, Anthrew) | 19:15 |
+| 7/3/08 | 19:10 | John Elliott (AA) | V4 | T/Dorm / Elstein/Jeffrey | 20:15 |
+| 7/3/08 | 19:10 | Brian Edinaton (AA) | V8 | T/Dorm | 20:15 |
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|--------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/13/08 | 1920 | Melanie Khouri | V62-3 | Intake Booking | 1936 |
+| 7/13/08 | 1920 | Nicole Dimaso | V42-4 | Intake Booking | 1930 |
+| 7/4/08 | 0085 | Weedy A. Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1210 |
+| 7/4/08 | 0909 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | |
+| 7/4/08 | 0930 | Joann Graham- MSW (Social Worker) | V-9 | I/M's: [REDACTED] (M-Dorm) and Wyche (B-Dorm). | 1748 |
+| 7/4/08 | 1007 | Mirlanda Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1108 |
+| 7/4/08 | 1246 | [REDACTED] Pagano- Paralegal | V-4 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Mgmt). | 1839 |
+| 7/4/08 | 1940 | Jowany Azocho (Alumini) | V-11 | DRUG FARM | 1510 |
+| 7/4/08 | 1945 | Phillip Stephens (Alumini) | V-12 | DRUG FARM | 2104 |
+| 7/4/08 | 1945 | Dansby Rashod (Alumini) | V-13 | DRUG FARM | 2104 |
+| 7/5/08 | 120 | CURTIS Pinkney | PBSO | Q-Bldg | 2104 |
+| 7/5/08 | 0740 | Sarah Korn | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1020 |
+| 7/5/08 | 0857 | Sharon [REDACTED] - United Deliverance Min | PBSO | A/B-Dorm. | 1120 |
+| 7/5/08 | 0900 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 0909 |
+| 7/5/08 | 0955 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1750 |
+| 7/5/08 | 1249 | [REDACTED] Pagano- Paralegal | V-17 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special Mgmt). | 1850 |
+| 7/5/08 | 1447 | Sgt. [REDACTED] - Deputy Sheriff | PBSO | Visitation area. | 1530 |
+| 7/5/08 | 1503 | Arnold P. Prosperi- Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special Mgmt). | 1615 |
+| 7-5-08 | 1920 | Harris Richard | V-17 | Drug Farm | 1660 |
+| 7-5-08 | | | | | 2104 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+Case # XXXX-XXXX-XXXX Document #XXXX-XXXX Entered on 7/5/08 by XXXX Page # XXXX
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE**
+**DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS**
+**OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG**
+**" CENTRAL CONTROL "**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+ STOCKADE
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+ DRUG FARM
+
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------------|
+| 07/06/08 | 01:35 | Evelyn Wilford | PBSO | Trinity Staff - Kitchen | 1003 |
+| 07/06/08 | 07:41 | Ms Edelman | PBSO | S.A.A.P. | |
+| 7/6/08 | 0903 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1021 |
+| 7/6/08 | 0908 | Agent [REDACTED] - Deputy Sheriff | PBSO | Adult Cust Office. | 1725 |
+| 7/6/08 | 1019 | Elta Emiclar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1056 |
+| 7/6/08 | 1216 | [REDACTED] Pagano- Paralegal | V-7 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special Mgmt). | 1835 |
+| 7/6/08 | 1517 | Guy [REDACTED] - Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special Mgmt). | 1445 |
+| 7/6/08 | 1517 | Michael Tein- Attorney | L-2 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special Mgmt). | 1710 |
+| 7-6-08 | 1725 | Dr. Alexander | V-17 | Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special.) | 1710 |
+| 7-6-08 | 1843 | Bertsch, Katien | PBSO | SB F dorm, Fuller B | 1844 |
+| 7-6-08 | 1952 | Smith, James | V-17 | T-dorm Attending | 1950 2100 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|--------|---------|-----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|-----------|
+| 7/7/08 | 01:35 | Evelyn Wilford | PBSO | Trinity Staff - Quebee | 1113 |
+| 7/7/08 | 06:20 | Elizabeth Green | PBSO | Trinity Staff - Quebee | 1431 |
+| 7/7/08 | 06:45 | D. King | PASO | Drug Farm | |
+| 7/7/08 | 07:15 | Ms. Engle Ran | PBSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 7/7/08 | 07:23 | Caitlin Bronstein | PASO | SAAP | 1107 1602 |
+| 7/7/08 | 07:28 | Arthur Troy | PBSO | SAAP | 1018 |
+| 7/7/08 | 07:29 | Make West | PBSO | SAAP | 1602 |
+| 7/7/08 | 07:30 | Jim Justin | PBSO | SAAP | |
+| 7/7/08 | 07:45 | Chenelle Hytoner | PBSO | SAAP | |
+| 7/7/08 | 07:48 | Angelikia Wessinger-SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area | 1625 |
+| 7/7/08 | 0758 | Susan Wilkoff- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1625 |
+| 7/7/08 | 0805 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB | PBSO | School Classroom. | 1746 |
+| 7/7/08 | 0814 | Terry Graves- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1157 |
+| 7/7/08 | 0826 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1136 |
+| 7/7/08 | 0847 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1516 |
+| 7/7/08 | 0859 | Andre [REDACTED] - ESS | PBSO | J/K-Dorm to gate #68 buzzer not working | 1106 |
+| 7/7/08 | 0859 | [REDACTED] Doherty- ESS | PBSO | " " " " " " " " " | |
+| 7/7/08 | 0911 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1602 |
+| 7/7/08 | 0944 | Rony Noreston- Florida Public Utilities | V-2 | On the compound. | |
+| 7/7/08 | 0957 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 0956 |
+| 7/7/08 | 1014 | Jeff [REDACTED] - ESS | PBSO | on the compound. | 1140 |
+| 7/7/08 | 1023 | Caitlin Bronstein- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | |
+| 7/7/08 | 1213 | Caitlin Bronstein -DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1206 |
+| 7/7/08 | 1217 | Patricia Edelman- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1103 |
+| 7/7/08 | 1313 | Darren Indyke- Attorney | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1102 |
+| 7/7/08 | 1322 | | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special Mgmt). | 1706 |
+
+ LMT FOD
+ THIS IS A VOLUME OF DRUG DATA AND IS FOLLOWING THE FOLLOWING PAGE
+
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|------------|-----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|----------|
+| 07/08/08 | 1451 | Kenneth Huxhold- SAAP | PBSO | L-Dorm to see inmates. | 15:48 |
+| 07/08/08 | 1457 | Darren Indyke- Attorney | L-4 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special Mgmt). | 1538 |
+| 07/08/08 | 1500 | Jack Goldberger- Attorney | L-2 | " " " " | |
+| 07/08/08 | 1526 | Guy [REDACTED] - Attorney | L-5 | " " " " | 1745 |
+| 07/08/08 | 1526 | Michael Tein- Attorney | L-1 | " " " " | 1745 |
+| 7-8-08 | 1615 | Indyke, Darren | L-4 | " " " " | |
+| 7-8-08 | 1830 | Montgomery, Thomas | L-4 | SB-dorm to see inmate Twee | 1825 |
+| 7-8-08 | 1830 | Allen Annette | V-11 | Drug Farm | 1725 |
+| 7-8-08 | 1830 | Glover, Marvin | V-12 | Drug Farm | 2010 |
+| 7-8-08 | [REDACTED] | Robert Duquet | C-3 | T-Dorm Clergy Catholic | 2010 |
+| 7-8-08 | 18:49 | Deborah Prescott | C-2 | T-Dorm Clergy Catholic | 2000 |
+| 7-8-08 | 18:49 | Thomas Lawlor | PBSO | C Dorm Clergy Catholic | 2000 |
+| 7-8-08 | 18:49 | Robert Williams | C-4 | C-Dorm Clergy Catholic | 2010 |
+| 7-8-08 | 18:49 | Monzell Hawlk | C-5 | V-Building Clergy | 2000 |
+| 7-8-08 | 18:49 | Tavarus Prince | C-6 | V-Building Clergy | 2000 |
+| 7-8-08 | 18:49 | Alfred Monroe | C-7 | V-Building Clergy | 2000 |
+| 7-8-08 | 18:49 | Alethia Monroe | C-8 | V-Building Clergy | 2000 |
+| 7-8-08 | 1940 | Harley, Michael | V-14 | Intake Backing to serve Esper. Dion | 2000 |
+| 7-8-08 | 2000 | Burbage, Nelson | V-1 | T-dorm | 2100 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+Copyright © 2008 PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Page 43 of 52
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|-----------------|------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 07-08-08 | 0124 | Evelyn Wilford (Trinity) | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1115 |
+| 07-08-08 | 0605 | Liz Green (Trinity) | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | |
+| 07-08-08 | 0730 | ARTHUR TROY (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1423 |
+| 07-08-08 | 0730 | Michael West (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 150 |
+| 07-08-08 | 0734 | Timothy Justin (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1600 |
+| 07-08-08 | 0734 | Gloria Ahlman (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1377 |
+| 07-08-08 | 0742 | Julia Adams (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1701 |
+| 07-08-08 | 0744 | Angeliki Weissinger (DAF) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1758 |
+| 07-08-08 | 0753 | Patricia Eldeman (DAF) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1730 |
+| 07-08-08 | 0754 | SUSAN Wilkoff- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1600 |
+| 07-08-08 | 0821 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB Teacher | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1735 |
+| 07-08-08 | 0835 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | School Classroom. | 1207 |
+| 07-08-08 | 0904 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1438 |
+| 07-08-08 | 1014 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1758 |
+| 07/08/08 | 1043 | Mr. Harper- ESS | PBSO | Intake Control. | 1849 |
+| 07/08/08 | 1137 | [REDACTED] Change- Deputy | PBSO | | 1100 |
+| 07/08/08 | 1145 | Pablo [REDACTED]- DAF | PBSO | line-up room. | 1242 |
+| 07/08/08 | 1201 | Edwin [REDACTED]- Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Pullens, Cleo (D-Dorm). | 1505 |
+| 07/08/08 | 1300 | [REDACTED] Varju- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1321 |
+| 07/08/08 | 1314 | Raul Pozos- Fla Dept of Correction | V-18 | | 1505 |
+| 07/08/08 | 1316 | Darren Indyke- Attorney | L-2 | Q-Bldg. | 1546 |
+| 07/08/08 | 1328 | G. Scott Penney- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special Mgmt). | 1404 |
+| 07/08/08 | 1330 | Evelyn Pennington- Public Defender | L-1 | Various dorms to see inmates. Intake Booking area. | 1600 |
+| 07/08/08 | 1407 | Robert Humes- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1537 |
+| 07/08/08 | 1413 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1653 |
+| 07/08/08 | 1413 | Sarah Korn-DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1700 |
+
+Case #: FOR-CV-80119-KAM Document 54092 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 34 of 52
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+ STOCKADE
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+ DRUG FARM
+
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|-----------|
+| 7/09/08 | 1213 | MR. INDYKE (AITY) | L-4 | T-Spec. / F/m Epstein, J. | 1342 |
+| | 1308 | ERIK JENJEN (P.P.) | N-1 | VARIOUS | 1339 |
+| | 324 | MICHAEL ODROBINA (P.P.) | PBJO | L-DORM | 1409 |
+| | 1522 | MICHAEL MCVAN (INVESTIGATOR) | VL | VARIOUS | 1513 |
+| | 1337 | MARC LYONS (AITY) | L1 | T-Specing | 1577 |
+| | 1337 | JACK GODBERGER (AITY) | L2 | T-Specing | 1411/1517 |
+| | 1340 | SPARLON NEELAKANTA (P.P.) | PBJO | VARIOUS | 1540 |
+| | 1342 | EDWIN FELSWON (AITY) | L-3 | A-DORM | 1430 |
+| | 1402 | ROBERT HUMES (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1658 |
+| | 1412 | SARAH KOLN (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1658 |
+| | 1412 | JESSICA WALLY (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1658 |
+| | 1600 | MR IMMYNE (PTM) | L1 | T-MGT - EPSTEIN | 1850 |
+| | 1710 | SISTER BRAMMER | PBJO | J/K DRUG FARM | 1940 |
+| | 1730 | MB. CABOTE AITY | L2 | T-MGT - EPSTEIN | 1840 |
+| | 1730 | MR TERRY | L3 | T-MGT EPSTEIN | 1840 |
+| | 1758 | MR AMERISON TORONE | PBJO | J/K | 1840 |
+| | 1755 | MR KERRE TORONE | V11 | J/K | 1840 |
+| | 1841 | MR CURTIS RA | V12 | T-MGT | 2020 |
+| | 1841 | MR SHARLEY RA | V14 | T-MGT | 2020 |
+| | 1845 | MS CALLA RA | V15 | DRUG FARM | 2008 |
+| | 1845 | MS CALLA RA | V16 | DRUG FARM | 2008 |
+| | 1945 | MR ALEXANDER (BSY) | V6 | EPSTEIN'S DOCTOR | 2055 |
+| | 1955 | MR MODDER RA | V11 | DRUG FARM | 2103 |
+| | 2354 | MS LIRIANO #5336 | PBJO | EPSTEIN'S DOCTOR - 11/10 GOVERNOR | — |
+| | 2354 | MR KIDDE #5347 | PBJO | EPSTEIN'S DOCTOR - 11/10 GOVERNOR | — |
+
+"CENTRAL CONTROL"
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|---------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 07-10-08 | 12:19 | Ghevelle Hytower - SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1625 |
+| 07-10-08 | 12:01 | Latricia Edelman - SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1625 |
+| 7/10/08 | 12:43 | JEANETTE CROWDER (PROBATION) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1625 |
+| 7/10/08 | 12:48 | SCHOETTLE, DOUGLAS | V1 | T-SPECIAL (S/M: EPSTEIN, J) per Sgt. W.I. Han | 1625 |
+| 7/10/08 | 12:48 | MURPHY, WILLIAM | V2 | T-SPECIAL (S/M: EPSTEIN, J) per Sgt. W.I. Han | 1410 |
+| 7/10/08 | 12:48 | SCHANK, ROGER | V3 | T-SPECIAL (S/M: EPSTEIN, J) per Sgt. W.I. Han | 1410 |
+| 7/10/08 | 13:47 | JOSEPH VARJU | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1625 |
+| 7/10/08 | 14:12 | SARAH KORN (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1625 |
+| 7/10/08 | 14:12 | JESSICA WALLY (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1707 |
+| 7/10/08 | 14:40 | SCOTT PENNEY (R.D.) | PBJO | L/M | 1707 |
+| 7/10/08 | 14:42 | EUNICE BAROS (R.D.) | PBJO | L-DORM | 1625 |
+| 7/10/08 | 14:54 | JONATHAN KAYE (TEACHER) | V1 | L. JACKSON | 1614 |
+| 7/10/08 | 15:05 | DARREN INDYKE (AITY) | L-1 | T-SPECIAL (L/M: EPSTEIN, J) | 1625 |
+| 7/10/08 | 15:29 | DANTE MEDINA | PBJO | VARIOUS | 1707 |
+| 7/10/08 | 15:55 | ALAN DETTAUD - ALIAN BROWN / 11 | | Pet. Custody (Copy match) | 1715 |
+| 7/10/08 | 15:58 | MR LADD PUB DEP | PBSO | SB 11/M M7LLS | 1625 |
+| 7/10/08 | 16:06 | MR LADD PTTP | LS | RA = 1/M JACKS, R | 1726 |
+| 7/10/08 | 18:05 | MR GLOVER TEACHER | V1 | DRUG FARM | 2005 |
+| 7/10/08 | 18:05 | MR ALLAN TEACHER | V2 | DRUG FARM | 2005 |
+| 7/10/08 | 19:46 | MR GUEST AA | V3 | SA DORM M E2574 | 2005 |
+| 7/10/08 | 19:46 | MR FOLEY PP | V4 | SA DORM | 2005 |
+| 7/10/08 | 19:52 | MR MENLEY A/A | V11 | T-DORM | |
+| 7/11/08 | 0135 | Curtis Kinley | PBJO | Trinity START | 2103 |
+| 7/11/08 | 0630 | Elizabeth Green | PBSO | Trinity START | 1033 |
+| 7/11/08 | 0640 | Dorothy Green | PBSO | Trinity START | 1429 |
+| 7/11/08 | 0710 | | | SMALL | |
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/11/04 | 0718 | Caitlin Bronstein | PBSO | SAAP | 1128 |
+| 7/11/05 | 0730 | Tim Justin | PBSO | SAAP | |
+| 7/11/06 | 0740 | Michael West | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1508 |
+| 7/11/07 | 0750 | Bethan Weissinger, Ang. | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1023 |
+| 07/11/08 | 0755 | Susan Wilkoff- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1731 |
+| 07/11/08 | 0759 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB | PBSO | School Classroom. | 1158 |
+| 07/11/08 | 0835 | G.Scott Penney- Public Defender | PBSO | various dorms to see inmates. | 1129 |
+| 07/11/08 | 0835 | Elizabeth Yermes- Public Defender | PBSO | various dorms to see inmates. | 0853 |
+| 07/11/08 | 0840 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1037 |
+| 07/11/08 | 0845 | [REDACTED] Chien- Fla D O R | V-11 | I/M's: [REDACTED], M (D) and Simpson, Gary (G) | 1359 |
+| 07/11/08 | 0904 | Patrecha Newby-Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 0922 |
+| 07/11/08 | 0915 | Christy Baker- Public Defender | PBSO | various dorms to see inmates. | 1751 |
+| 07/11/08 | 0941 | [REDACTED] Paquetta- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1151 |
+| 07/11/08 | 0958 | Gloria Alham- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1359 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1004 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1532 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1021 | [REDACTED] Vranek- ESS | PBSO | G-Dorm | 1844 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1113 | Michael West- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1150 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1117 | James Hester- Deputy | PBSO | Line up room. | 1554 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1117 | Lawrence Change- Deputy | PBSO | Line up room. | 1235 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1136 | Adam Ballou- Deputy | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1235 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1136 | Val Sherrod- Deputy | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1235 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1136 | Saida Michel- Deputy | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1235 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1157 | Marco Lyons- Attorney | I-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special Mgmt.) | 1235 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1204 | Caitlin Bronstein- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1405 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1211 | Honray Fairclough- Deputy | PBSO | Line up room | 1236 |
+
+Case 9-08-cv-80119-KAM Document 5402 Edited on PLSD Booket 05/07/2019 Page 17 of 52
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------------------------------|----------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|----------|
+| 07/11/08 | 1242 | D/S Maharrey - Deputy | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates. | |
+| 07/11/08 | 1342 | Susan Wilkoff- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | |
+| 07/11/08 | 1414 | Sarah Korn- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 0005 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1414 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1108 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1427 | Kenneth Huxhold- SAAP | PBSO | T-Dorm. | 1109 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1452Christopher Chien - FLA DOR | | V-11 | I/M: [REDACTED], M (D-Dorm). | 1535 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1524 | Jack Goldberger- Attorney | L-5 | I/M: Epstien, Jeffrey (T-Special Mgmt). | 1522 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1534 | Jerry Wade- Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates | 11040 |
+| 07/11/08 | 1715 | Prosperi Paul Arnold | L-5 | T-Special to see MM Epstien | 1609 |
+| 7/11/08 | 1800 | Allen Arnold | V-2 | S/K dorm | 1818 |
+| 7/11/08 | 1800 | Gelfarrel clark | V-3 | S/K dorm | 1931 |
+| 7/11/08 | 1800 | Glover Martin | V-4 | S/K dorm | 1931 |
+| 7/11/08 | 2000 | Phillip Watson Stearens (Alumn.) | V-11 | Drug Farm | 1931 |
+| 7/11/08 | 2000 | Rogers Roger | V-1 | Drug Farm | 2113 |
+| 7/11/08 | 2000 | Larkin Kevin | V-2 | Drug Farm | 2118 |
+| 7/11/08 | 2000 | Bolger Cody | V-3 | Drug Farm | 2118 |
+| 7/11/08 | 2105 | Marchetty Athur | L-5 | St-dorm (Toussaint Richard) | 2119 |
+| 7/11/08 | 2105 | Jones, Mark | L-1 | St-dorm (Balam, Lomme) | 2119 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG**
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/12/08 | 6/24 | Clerk's Personnel/Trinity | PBSO | Quick | 1046 |
+| 7/12/08 | 0720 | Robert Khumes/J+K | PBSO | Life Skills | |
+| 07/12/08 | 0819 | Julia [REDACTED] - SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1112 |
+| 07/12/08 | 0903 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 730 |
+| 07/12/08 | 0903 | Linda Leary- United Deliverance Ministry | PBSO | Various dorm to see inmates. | 1815 |
+| 07/12/08 | 1002 | Elta Emilcar- TRINITY STAFF | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 0929 |
+| 07/12/08 | 1231 | Angeliki Weissenger - SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1800 |
+| 07-12-08 | 1313 | [REDACTED] pagano | atty | epstein Jeffrey T-SPL | 1639 |
+| 7-12-08 | 2000 | Harris Richard (AA) | AA | Drug Farm | 1208 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "**
+
+*Advising per
+and detention page*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 07/13/08 | 0140 | Eveelyn Wilford- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1000 |
+| 07/13/08 | 0750 | Angeliki Weissenger- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1640 |
+| 07/13/08 | 0903 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1810 |
+| 07/13/08 | 1033 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1912 |
+| 07/13/08 | 1249 | █████ Pagano- Para Legal | L4 | T-Special | 1527 |
+| 07/13/08 | 1339 | Laura Fagley- DOC Probation Officer | V-19 | I/M: █████, Robert (F-Dorm). | 1440 |
+| 07/13/08 | 1408 | Josie James- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M's: Josey, James (A-Dorm)/█████, C (F-Dorm). | 1509 |
+| 07/13/08 | 1514 | Michael Tein- Attorney | L-2 | I/M: Espstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1710 |
+| 7/13/08 | 1715 | Prosperi Paul Arnold | L-4 | T-special to see inmate Espstein. | 1810 |
+| 7/13/08 | 1953 | Branchini Adam (AA) | | T-dorm for meeting | 2105 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+Case 9:08-cv-88119-KAM Document 5-002 Entered on PLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 20 of 52
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/14/08 | 1:45 | Evelyn Wilford | PBSO | Trinity Staff -Quebec | 1023 |
+| 7/14/08 | 5:29 | Ms Paguette | PBSO | Food Services | 1314 |
+| 7/14/08 | 0638 | Elizabeth Green | PBSO | Trinity Staff -Quebec | 1420 |
+| 7/14/08 | 0756 | Debra King | PBSO | SAAP | |
+| 7/14/08 | 0715 | Tim Justin | PBSO | SAAP | |
+| 7/14/08 | 0736 | Gary Gibbons | PBSO | SAAP | 1647 |
+| 7/14/08 | 0738 | Michael West | PBSO | SAAP | 1600 |
+| 7/14/08 | 0743 | Julia Adams | PBSO | SAAP | 1600 |
+| 7/14/08 | 0745 | Shan Wilkoff | PBSO | SAAP | 1640 |
+| 07/14/08 | 0746 | Angelikia Weissenger- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1709 |
+| 07/14/08 | 0752 | Patricia Edelman- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1615 |
+| 07/14/08 | 0759 | Terry Graves- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1415 |
+| 07/14/08 | 0802 | John Habicht-Trinity Staff | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1124 |
+| 07/14/08 | 0814 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1447 |
+| 07/14/08 | 0852 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Calssroon Teacher. | 1130 |
+| 07/14/08 | 0852 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1749 |
+| 07/14/08 | 0938 | Chaplain Bannister - Chap. | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1702 |
+| 07/14/08 | 0954 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Various Dorms to see inmates. | 1030 |
+| 07/14/08 | 0958 | Gloria Alaham- SAAP | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1850 |
+| 07/14/08 | 1149 | Egerty Pierre-Louis ( Interview) | V-4 | Drug Farm area. | 1610 |
+| 07/14/08 | 1220 | Indyke , Darren - Attorney | L-1 | Nurse Whitten in medical. | 1318 |
+| 07/14/08 | 1252 | Caitlin Bronstein- DAF | PBSO | I/M: Esptein, Jeffrey (T-Special Mgmt). | 1447 |
+| 07/14/08 | 0746 | [REDACTED] Varju- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1699 |
+| 07/14/08 | 1409 | Robert Humes- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | |
+| 07/14/08 | 1542 | Jack Goldberger- Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Esptein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1694 |
+| 07/14/08 | 1542 | | | | 1707 |
+
+LMT
+1915
+
+Case 9:08-cv-00419-KAM. Document 540-2. Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010. Page 21 of 52
+
+ESP
+Extra Sub
+Printed
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 7-14-08 | 1 030 | Alexander Stephen (Dr.) | V- | Especial to see im Epstein | 1815 |
+| 7-14-08 | 1720 | Quinn Sean (Rustegel) | L-4 | Ddorm "Rubio Keith" | 1750 |
+| 7-14-08 | 1745 | Laurence Thomas (bible study) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1939 |
+| 7-14-08 | 1743 | Perce Angel (bible study) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1939 |
+| 7-14-08 | 1845 | McCray Herman (clergy) | C-7 | Church services | 2000 |
+| 7-14-08 | 1845 | Williams Hester (clergy) | C-8 | Church services | 2000 |
+| 7-14-08 | 1855 | Smith Penee (AA) | V-4 | NA meeting (C-dorm) | 2000 |
+| 7-14-08 | 1905 | Hardnett Lawrence (clergy) | C-2 | Church services | 2000 |
+| 7-14-08 | 1930 | Hall, Genevieve (Attorney) | L-4 | SA-dorm Ryan Brooks | 2020 |
+| 7-14-08 | 1950 | Turney Lenne (AA) | V-1 | C-dorm (meeting) | 2103 |
+| 7-14-08 | 1950 | Shugar Gerald (AA) | V-19 | Drug Farm (meeting) | 2103 |
+| 7-14-08 | 2003 | Collins Hilda (AA) | V-11 | C-dorm (meeting) | 2103 |
+
+Case 7-08-04-80119-KAM Document 34072 Entered on FESD/Docket 05/07/2019 Page 22 of 52
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|---------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|----------|
+| 7-15-08 | 1247 | Attorney Dawan K. Endylle | L-2 | T-special inmate Epitein Stelbrug | 1237 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1247 | Stryng Ambin (Pener Logel) | L-4 | T-special inmate Epitein Stelbrug | 1237 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1251 | Joseph Varju | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1542 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1316 | P.D. G. Scott Penny | PBSO | Varju's dorm | 1600 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1332 | Beard Suddler (Roe-Trical) | PBSO | Runglin, Ricardo (A-dorm) | 1245 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1352 | Attorney Dean J. Merten | L-1 | Attorney Cristabol (RD) | 1558 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1352 | Sergio Cazane (Enterprite) | V-3 | Attorney Cristabol (RS) | 1558 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1358 | Attorney Simeha Rabai Gerahm | L-2 | Grambilis Tumer (A7-dorm) | 1424 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1404 | Serah Marn - DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1054 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1404 | Tessica Welly - DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1054 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1405 | Robert Humes - SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1052 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1405 | Evelyn Bennister | PBSO | Compound | 1512 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1409 | Daniel K. Endylle (Attorney) | L-1 | Epitein Stelbrug (T-special) | 1433 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1552 | Attorney Reiner W. Bitt Lichter | L-1 | Inmate & costruction | 1700 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1621 | Attorney Muntesino Samuel | L-2 | R-dorm to see inmate Scarlett cecilio | 1050 |
+| 7-15-08 | | Hytouer Chevelle | PBSO | not signed in on log | 1045 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1855 | Thomas Lawton (bide study) | PBSO | C-dorm (clerquy) | 2105 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1855 | Manthey Gabriel (bide study) | C-1 | R-dorm (clerquy) | 2105 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1955 | Burbage Nelson | V-1 | T-dorm (AA) | 2112 |
+
+
+
+*Central*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 7-15-08 | 0114 | EVEYN WILFORD - TRINITY | ABSO | KITCHEN | 1131 |
+| 7-15-08 | 01030 | CURTIS PINKNEY - TRINITY | ABSO | KITCHEN | 1131 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0725 | CAITLIN BRONSTEIN (SAAP) | PBSD | DRUG FARM | 1521 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0729 | TIMOTHY JUSTIN (SAAP) | PBSD | DRUG FARM | 1124 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0729 | GARY GIBSON (SAAP) | PBSD | DRUG FARM | 1071 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0734 | JULIA ADAMS (SAAP) | PBSD | DRUG FARM | 1609 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0736 | ANGELINE WEISSWICH (SAAP) | PBSD | DRUG FARM | 1650 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0736 | GLORIA ALTMAN (SAAP) | PBSD | DRUG FARM | 1642 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0738 | MICHAEL WEST (SAAP) | PBSD | DRUG FARM | 1735 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0744 | PATRICIA ELDERMAN (SAAP) | PBSD | DRUG FARM | 1530 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0757 | JAY BADGETT ADULT ED. | PBSD | CLASSIZOOM | 16010 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0758 | LEONARDO TABORDA PUBLIC DEF | PBSD | M-DOH BAYNE, KIRSTEN R. DEFINIKUZ, FERNANDO | 1107 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0800 | JOHN HABICAT - TRINITY | PBSD | MORTON | 835 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0802 | MARTINE JOAN - BABINES (PUBLIC DEF) | PBSD | B-DOH | 1537 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0813 | MR. FILS-AIME (ATTY.) | PBSD | F.B.I. DOEMIS / VARIOUS I/M'S | 0852 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0812 | MS. EMILCAR (TRINITY) | PBSD | A. BYLL / TRY | 0932 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0812 | CHRISTIS WENDEL (Attorney) | R-1 | TOMATO KERNEY ANTHONY (SA) | 0939 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0826 | MARIE HASAN (P.D.) | PBSD | MIDDON TIM CLARK - SULLIVAN | 0936 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0920 | TERRITORIA CROWDER (Probation officer) | PBSD | DANY FARM | 1141 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0952 | SUSAN WILKOFF | PBSD | DANY FARM | 1715 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0958 | PATRICIA NEWBY (TRINITY) | PBSD | R-BLDG | 1905 |
+| 7-15-08 | 0960 | THOMAS SLOAN (TRINITY) | PBSD | R-BLDG | 1488 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1138 | MICHAEL R. TIM (Attorney) | L-1 | FIM GOSHIP SELBERY (T-SPECIAL) | 1255 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1131 | CHITLIN BRONSTEIN (SAAP) | PBSD | DANY FARM | 1621 |
+| 7-15-08 | 1155 | MOBIE PATLSONS P.D | PBSD | MORTON'S MOISES | 1727 |
+| 7-15-08 | 12741 | T. L. L. L. | | | |
+
+CASE 9-08-CV-80119-KAM Document 3402 Entered on PLSD Docket 05/07/2019 Page 24 of 52
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 07/16/08 | 01:50 | Evelyn Wilford | PB50 | Q BEC | 1318 |
+| 07/16/08 | 5:39 | Denna Taquette | PB50 | Q BEC | 1253 |
+| 07/16/08 | 6:03 | Certis Pitkney | PB50 | Q BEC | 0935 |
+| 07/16/08 | 6:55 | L. Williams | PB50 | Swanson | 1122 |
+| 07/16/08 | 6:55 | J. Bailon | PB50 | Swanson | 1122 |
+| 07/16/08 | 6:55 | B. Cedeno | PB50 | Swanson | 1122 |
+| 07/16/08 | 7:30 | Catelin Bonstein | PB50 | D.A.F. | 1620 |
+| 07/16/08 | 7:30 | Timothy Justin | PB50 | SAAP | 1741 |
+| 07/16/08 | 7:37 | S. Wilkoff | PB50 | SAAP | 1741 |
+| 07/16/08 | 7:37 | Mrs. West | PB50 | SAAP | 1640 |
+| 07/16/08 | 7:37 | Mr. Graves | PB50 | SAAP | 115 |
+| 07/16/08 | 7:39 | C. Hytower | PB50 | SAAP | 1200 |
+| 07/16/08 | 7:40 | J. Habicht | PB50 | SAAP | 1456 |
+| 07/16/08 | 7:37 | Mrs. Adams | PB50 | SAAP | 1741 |
+| 07/16/08 | 0753 | ANGELICI WENNINGER | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1255 |
+| 07/16/08 | 0756 | JAY BADGETT (TEACHER) | PB50 | CLASTROM | 1136 |
+| 07/16/08 | 0814 | MARC STERN (DENTIST) | V1 | MEDICAL | 1254 |
+| 07/16/08 | 0835 | DANTE MEPINA (P.P.) | PB50 | F-DORM | 0850 |
+| 07/16/08 | 0850 | NICOLE BUDDE DIAZ | PB50 | DRUG FARM | |
+| 07/16/08 | 0853 | ELTA EMILCAR (TRINITY) | PB50 | Q-BLDG | |
+| 07/16/08 | 0900 | JOEY BARLOW (TRINITY) | V2 | Q-BLDG | |
+| 07/16/08 | 1009 | DR. LEOROWICK (PYSICHOLOGIST) | V3 | F-DORM | 1049 |
+| 07/16/08 | 12:04 | Geesey, Allan | L-1 | SA DORM | 1135 |
+| 07/16/08 | 1206 | STORY COWLES (PARALEGAL) | L-2 | T-Sprc. (EDITEN, J) | 1242 |
+| 07/16/08 | 1206 | DAN TINOYKE (AITY) | L3 | T-Sprc. (EDITEN, J) | 1411 |
+| 07/16/08 | 12:11 | ANAMI (ANICATA (BAN) | AAM | T-Sprc. (EDITEN, J) | 1316 |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|--------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/16/08 | 1237 | ANTHONY RYAN (ATTY) | L4 | G/N - DORM | 1326 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1239 | JOSEPH VAROU (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1533 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1246 | PATRICIA EDELMAN (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | |
+| 7/16/08 | 1256 | NICOLE DIMASI (INVESTIGATOR) | V3 | C-DORM | 1325 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1334 | FLYNN BERTISCH (ATTY) | L1 | D-DORM | 1439 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1341 | DAN INDYKE (ATTY) | L3 | T-SPECIAL (EPUTEIN, →) | 1455 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1405 | ROBERT HUMES (DAF) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 155 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1405 | JESSICA WALLY (DAF) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1700 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1414 | SDRAH KORN (DAF) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1700 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1450 | DAN INDYKE (ATTY) | L-1 | T-SPECIAL (EPUTEIN) | 1700 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1450 | JACK GOLDBERGER (ATTY) | L2 | T-SPECIAL (EPUTEIN) | 1655 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1520 | JERRY WADE ( P.D. ) | PBSO | VARIOUS | 1552 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1539 | EDWIN BEZARES (MAXDAVIS) | V1 | INTAKE BOOKING | 1600 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1607 | MR COOWES ATTM | L2 | PHAR LEGAL - DASTEIN | 1547 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1625 | MR SRITE ATTM | L3 | INTAKE BOOKING - DASTEIN | 1746 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1800 | MR PAUL DELOAS TROMBA | V1 | INTAKE BOOKING - SA | 1755 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1800 | MR KAREN TROMBA | V1 | DRUG FARM | 1935 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1900 | MS COHN AT | V2 | DRUG FARM | 1935 |
+| 7/16/08 | 1900 | MS SWARTZ AT | V3 | DRUG FARM | 2006 |
+| 7/16/08 | 2000 | MR DELOATCH AT | V2 | DRUG FARM | 2006 |
+| 7/16/08 | 2000 | MR BEYES AT | V1 | DRUG FARM | 2105 |
+| 7/16/08 | 2000 | MS PATRICIA AT | V3 | DRUG FARM | 2105 |
+| 7/17/08 | 0155 | Evelyn Wilford | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 2055 |
+| 7/17/08 | 0425 | Curtis Rinkney | PBSO | Trinity Staff - QBelg | 1139 |
+| 7/17/08 | 0558 | Elizabeth Garden | PBSO | Trinity Staff - QBelg | 934 |
+| 7/17/08 | 0717 | N. A. ... | PBSO | Trinity Staff - QBelg | 1110 |
+
+### PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG " CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+| MAIN DETENTION CENTER | | STOCKADE | | WEST COUNTY DETENTION | | DRUG FARM | |
+|------------------------------------------------|---------|----------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------|------------------------------------|--|
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 0944 | Michaelanne [REDACTED] - State of Fla. | V-11 | I/M's: [REDACTED]/Baptiste/Fedele/[REDACTED]/Thelemaque=104 | | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1153 | Deputy Maharrey- Deputy | PBSO | ON the compound. | 1217 | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1155 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1200 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-1 | I/M: Esptein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1354 | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1218 | Jeffrey Ivory- Pre-Trial Services | PBSO | RA-Dorm to see inmates | 1257 | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1257 | Julia [REDACTED] - SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1712 | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1305 | Susan Wilkoff- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1300 | Pablo [REDACTED] - DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1308 | Patricia Edelman- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1402 | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1308 | Chevelle Hytower- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1603 | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1309 | Jospeh Varju- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1708 | | |
+| 07-18-08 | 1318 | sarah korn | pbso | drug farm area. | 1554 | | |
+| 07-18-08 | 1350 | scott penny | pbso | f-dorm r-dorm and s-dorm. | 1702 | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1345 | Timothy Justin- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1446 | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1400 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1633 | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1427 | Rebecca Thomann- DOC | V-11 | I/M: Trejo, [REDACTED] (SA18).. | 1702 | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1427 | Tequllia [REDACTED] - DOC | V-5 | I/M: Trejo, [REDACTED] (SA18). | 1448 | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1439 | Caitlin Bronstein- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | | | |
+| 07/18/08 | 1527 | Jack Goldberger- Attorney | L-2 | I/M: Esptein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1602 | | |
+| 7-18-08 | 1603 | Cauds stoey (para) | L-1 | T-special to see inmate Esptein | 1623 | | |
+| 7-18-08 | 1815 | Gelfand (GED) | V-3 | Drug Farm | 1757 | | |
+| 7-18-08 | 1815 | Glover (GED) | V-4 | Drug farm | 1836 | | |
+| 7-18-08 | 1815 | Prosperi Arnold Paul (ATT) | L-1 | T-special to see inmate Esptein | 1836 | | |
+| 7-18-08 | 2000 | Fritz Marlyn (AlumniAA) | V-4 | Drug Farm | 906 | | |
+| 7-18-08 | 2000 | Stephens Phillip (AlumniAA) | V-5 | Drug Farm | 2109 | | |
+| 7-18-08 | 2000 | Monica N. L. | | Drug Farm | 2109 | | |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ **DRUG FARM**
+
+**Espotment Service ELESP For Europe**
+ Europe Servicy
+ Paris-2nd
+ Suite 2 Suite 2
+ Barcelona
+ Legalsegudine.com
+
+Central Control
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/20/08 | 908 | Miranda Asting | PBSO | A-Building | 1751 |
+| 7/20/08 | 917 | Story Crowler | LI | T-Dorm | 1008 |
+| 7/20/08 | 1000 | Stephen Hexander (Dr) | VI | T-Dorm | 1008 |
+| 7/20/08 | 1036 | Elta Emilca | PBSO | A-Building | 1844 |
+| 7/20/08 | 1705 | Story Crowler | PBSO | T-Special | 1529 |
+| 7/20/08 | 1315 | Joseph Pagano | A | T-Special | 1647 |
+| 7/20/08 | 1359 | Jacie Goldberger | CS | T-Special | 1533 |
+| 7/20/08 | 1445 | Josie Kerne James | LA | A-Dorm | |
+| 7-20-08 | 1820 | Caules, Story | L-I | T-Special to see Inmate Epstein | 2008 |
+| 7-20-08 | 1449 | Smith, James | V-I | T-dorm to conduct meeting | 2101 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|------------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/21/08 | 0130 | Evelyn Wilford | PBSO | Trinity STAFF - Q Bedg. | |
+| 7/21/08 | 0710 | Padella R. | WUTILITIES | (Speed meter) | |
+| 7/21/08 | 0712 | Tim Justin | PBSO | SAAP | 2055 |
+| 7/21/08 | 0717 | J. Habisch | PBSO | Kind - Q plegy | 150 |
+| 7/21/08 | 0730 | Gibbone Garry | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1600 |
+| 7/21/08 | 0731 | Catherine Tory | PBSO | SAAP | 1415 |
+| 7/21/08 | 0738 | Cattler Brown | PBSO | SAAP | 1010 |
+| 7/21/08 | 0738 | Graves Mr. | PBSO | SAAP | |
+| 7/21/08 | 0738 | West Mike | PBSO | SAAP | |
+| 7/21/08 | 0731 | Red Edelman | PBSO | SAAP | 1600 |
+| 7/21/08 | 0746 | Susan Wieboff | PBSO | SAAP | 1600 |
+| 7/21/08 | 812 | Marthie Jenni Bridiste | PBSO | IC IM - DORIMS | 1718 |
+| 7/21/08 | 836 | Christie Phytawi | PBSO | Drug Farm | 935 |
+| 7/21/08 | 732 | Peter Carl Pecciby | PBSO | Q Building | 1702 |
+| 7/21/08 | 1108 | Christopher Middleton | VI | COMPOUND (Arexan) | 1800 |
+| 7/21/08 | 1055 | Story Circlers | VI | T-Special | 1550 |
+| 7/21/08 | 1355 | Jonathan Caplan (PD) | VI | E Dorim | 1400 |
+| 7/21/08 | 1345 | Bennie Willis | VI | KA Dorim | 1415 |
+| 7/21/08 | 1404 | Robert Finnes | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1440 |
+| 7/21/08 | 1404 | Jessica Wieboff | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1655 |
+| 7/21/08 | 1415 | Maria Patelly (PD) | VI | Drug Farm | 1702 |
+| 7/21/08 | 1417 | Michael Marie (Thurs) | VI | B Dorim | 1577 |
+| 7/21/08 | 1530 | Michael Trevi | VI | Intake | 1456 |
+| 7/21-08 | 1658 | Alexander Stephen (Dr) | VII | T-Special | 1830 |
+| 7-21-08 | 16034 | Green Perry (F.M) | PBSO | T-Special to see Eastern | PBSO |
+| 7-21-08 | 1900 | Don Neell | PBSO | T-Dorim to fix shoes | |
+
+
+
+16
+0165
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG**
+
+**"CENTRAL CONTROL"**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|--------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 7-21-08 | 1800 | Dunn Michael (babe stuck) | P-2 | Drug Farm | 1939 |
+| 7-21-08 | 1820 | Alexander Stephen (De) | V-1 | T-Special | 1938 |
+| 7-21-08 | 1850 | Clarke, Lurlene (Clergy) | C-3 | Clergy "Church serv." | 2005 |
+| 7-21-08 | 1850 | Clarke, Osmond (clergy) | C-4 | Clergy "church serv." | 2008 |
+| 7-21-08 | 1855 | Karpinski, Chris (detective) | PBSD | Intake Beaking to see inmate Tamiska "PB" | 1947 |
+| 7-21-08 | 1900 | Sweeney Gally (AA member) | V-11 | C-dorm | 2014 |
+| 7-21-08 | 1930 | Cowles, Stevy (Para) | C-1 | T-Special to see Epstein | 2050 |
+| 7-21-08 | 2002 | Sherry Erik | V-13 | Drug Farm | 2106 |
+| 7-21-08 | 2002 | Dumato Brian | V-12 | C-dorm | 2106 |
+| 7-22-08 | 0140 | Evelyn Wilford (Trinity Staff) | PBSD | D-Bldg | 1205 |
+| 7-22-08 | 0618 | Elizabeth Green | PBSD | Q-Bldg | 1428 |
+| 7-22-08 | 0633 | Deborah King | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1419 |
+| 7-22-08 | 0717 | Arthur Troy | PBSD | Drug farm | 1414 |
+| 7-22-08 | 0730 | Timothy Custin | PBSD | Drug farm | 1200 |
+| 7-22-08 | 0734 | Caitlin Branstein | PBSD | Drug farm | 1617 |
+| 7-22-08 | 0738 | Angeliti Weissinger | PBSD | Drug farm | 1620 |
+| 7-22-08 | 0738 | Chavelle Hubwer | PBSD | Drug farm | 1703 |
+| 7-22-08 | 0738 | Gary Gibson | PBSD | Drug farm | 1550 |
+| 7/22/08 | 0750 | Michael West- SAAP | PBSD | Drug Farm area. | 1135 |
+| 07/22/08 | 0807 | Susan Wilkoff-SAAP | PBSD | Drug Farm area. | 1713 |
+| 07/22/08 | 0814 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB | PBSD | School Classroom | 1210 |
+| 07/22/08 | 0817 | Patricia Edelman- SAAP | PBSD | Drug Farm area. | 1604 |
+| 07/22/08 | 0858 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSD | Q-Bldg. | 1733 |
+| 07/22/08 | 0907 | Oglesby- Public Defender | PBSD | C-Dorm and G/H-Dorm. | 1635 |
+| 07/22/08 | 0911 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSD | Q-Bldg. | 1647 |
+
+Ingalagdine.com
+
+ESP - 2
+Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2010 Page 33 of 52
+
+Entry Sensory
+Date Pd
+
+Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2010 Page 33 of 52
+
+(0 4 naladrIZOb
+
+LI MAIN DETENTION CENTER TOCKADE O WEST COUNTY DETENTION LI DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 07/22/08 | 0950 | Yvette Farnsworth- Public Defender | PBSO | Various Dorms to see i/m. | 1019 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1017 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1913 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1028 | Genevieve [REDACTED] - Attorney | L-4 | I/M's: Pierre, W (A-Dorm) Brools, R (SA09). | 1114 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1046 | [REDACTED] Middlebrooks- Alexxon | V-3 | on the compound reset mouse traps | 1545 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1123 | Jeff [REDACTED] - ESS | PBSO | On the compound to repair gate #16. | 1307 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1123 | Michael McLaughan- ESS | PBSO | On the compound to repair gate #16. | 1307 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1138 | Michael West- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1550 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1219 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-2 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1320 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1220 | Jack Goldberger- Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1358 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1220 | Robert Critton- Attorney | L-4 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1320 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1242 | Darren Indyke- Attorney | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1532 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1308 | [REDACTED] Variu- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1528 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1328 | Matthew Covil- D.O.C. | V-5 | I/M: [REDACTED], Quentyne (M-Dorm) | 1425 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1335 | Chaplain Bannister- Chaplain | PBSO | On the compound. | 1547 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1402 | Sarah Korn- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1701 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1404 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1703 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1404 | Robert Humes- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1701 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1422 | Jason Siegel- Attorney | L-1 | I/M: [REDACTED], Lemorris (M-Dorm). | 1630 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1423 | G. Scott Penney- Public Defender | PBSO | Various Dorms to see inmates. | 1020 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1432 | Trevor Sutar- Attorney | L-5 | I/M's: Gaines, Brandon (D-Dorm)/Blue, Macio (A-Dorm) | 1500 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1449 | Leonardo Tabordo- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M's: Quinn, [REDACTED] (T-M) and Freeman, Randy (M-Dorm) | 160 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1449 | Adam Langino- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M: [REDACTED], Miquel (RA05). | 1703 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1457 | [REDACTED] Oglesby- Public Defender | PBSO | G/H-Dorm. | 1527 |
+| 07/22/08 | 1501 | Timothy Justin- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1701 |
+| 7/22/08 | 1610 | Indyke Darren (ATT) | L-2 | T-Special to see inmate Fostin | 1125 |
+
+11 r .0)
+
+0
+
+0 01 0 N.) O
+
+)1509 "O )jam
+
+> (A) N.) 0
+
+"Central Control"
+
+□ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+✓ STOCKADE
+
+□ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+□ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | JIME-OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 07/23/08 | 1:00 | Eve Gan W. Hord / TRUNT | PSD | Quelve | |
+| 07/23/08 | 04:10 | Cintis Pinkney / TRUNT | PSD | Quelve | 1449 |
+| 07/23/08 | 07:00 | Shima Habichit / TRUNT | PSD | Quelve | 1449 |
+| 07/23/08 | 6:30 | Eriquetta Green / TRUNT | PSD | Quelve | 1466 |
+| 07/23/08 | 7:30 | Arethur Troy / Dansfarm | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1604 |
+| 07/23/08 | 7:30 | Mr. Gibson / Dansfarm | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1604 |
+| 07/23/08 | 7:30 | Mr. Branstein / Dansfarm | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1604 |
+| 07/23/08 | 7:40 | Mr. Euster " | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1604 |
+| 07/23/08 | 7:42 | Mr. West " | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1604 |
+| 07/23/08 | 7:42 | Mr. Gardner " | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1604 |
+| 07/23/08 | 7:44 | Mr. Willett " | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1604 |
+| 07/23/08 | 7:45 | Mr. Walaangen " | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1604 |
+| 07/23/08 | 7:47 | Mr. Tytomer " | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1604 |
+| 07/23/08 | 7:47 | Mr. Ede Marr " | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1604 |
+| 07/23/08 | 08:10 | Stanfords, ME (P.P.) | PSD | Drug Farm | |
+| 07/23/08 | 08:01 | Jay Badgert (GEACHER) | PSD | Drug Farm | |
+| 07/23/08 | 09:26 | GLORIA GREEN (JAND) | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1605 |
+| 07/23/08 | 09:29 | JAMIE HOLLOWAY (D.O.C.) | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1605 |
+| 07/23/08 | 09:29 | ECTA EMILCAK (TKINEN) | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1605 |
+| 07/23/08 | 09:40 | JAIMNA STABONE (P.D.) | PSD | Drug Farm | |
+| 07/23/08 | 10:04 | ENRIQUE SOBANO | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1605 |
+| 07/23/08 | 11:15 | GNESTOPORK MIDDLEBROOK | PSD | Drug Farm | |
+| 07/23/08 | 11:54 | POTECHIA NOWBY (TRONTY) | PSD | Drug Farm | |
+| 07/23/08 | 12:25 | LARRY INDYKE (AHTY) | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1900 |
+| 07/23/08 | 12:46 | JOSEPH VARIO (JOND) | PSD | Drug Farm | * 1900 |
+| 07/23/08 | 11:07 | LARRY INDYKE (JOND) | PSD | Drug Farm | |
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS**
+
+**OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG**
+
+*Center 1 Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/23/08 | 1405 | SARAH KORN (DAF) | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1705 |
+| 7/23/08 | 1412 | JESSICA WALLY (DAF) | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1705 |
+| 7/23/08 | 1500 | DAN INDYKE (AITY) | L1 | T-SPECIAL (F/M: EPSTEIN, J) | 1723 |
+| 7/23/08 | 1535 | JACK GOLDBERGER (AITY) | L2 | T-SPECIAL (F/M: EPSTEIN, J) | 1700 |
+| 7/23/08 | 15:50 | Jerry Woode II (AITY) | PB50 | Diana Estep. C-Dorm | 1604 |
+| 7/23/08 | 17:55 | Anderson (Teacher) | PB50 | Drug Farm | 1935 |
+| 7/23/08 | 1840 | Chaplain Bannister | C-1 | C-Dorm Church Service | 1900 |
+| 7/23/08 | 1840 | J. Perzanowski | C-2 | Catholic Service | 2000 |
+| 7/23/08 | 1840 | Deborah Prescott | C-3 | Catholic Service | 2000 |
+| 7/23/08 | 1845 | Louise Marshall | V-2 | C-Dorm | 2000 |
+| 7/23/08 | 1845 | Kristine Cohn | V-3 | C-Dorm | 2000 |
+| 7/23/08 | 1858 | Peter Thuong Treuong | C-4 | Catholic Service | 2000 |
+| 7/23/08 | 1850 | Curtis, Steven AA-meeting | V-2 | C-Dorm | 2000 |
+| 7/23/08 | 1955 | Melissa Thomas | V-3 | C-Dorm | 2018 |
+| 7/23/08 | 1955 | Gibson DAF | PB50 | Drug Farm | 2100 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+Case 9-08-CV-80119-KAM Document 504-2 Entered on FLSD-Docket 05/07/2010 Page 34 of 52
+
+Central Control
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/24/08 | 1409 | Jessica Wally | PBSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 7/24/08 | 1455 | Daniel Marshall (Ally) | PBSO | L-Dorm + F-Dorm | 1700 |
+| 7/24/08 | 1455 | Lindsay Hanson (PD) | PBSO | RHL Dorms | 1537 |
+| 7/24/08 | 1525 | Michael Poss Tein | L-3 | T-Dorm 1/a EOSTEIN T-MCT | 1622 |
+| 7/24/08 | 1545 | Jack Goldberger | L-1 | T-Dorm - 1/a EOSTEIN T-MCT | 1925 |
+| 7/24/08 | 1445 | Jack Fleischman | L-2 | T-Dorm | 1925 |
+| 7/24/08 | 1610 | Mrs Cowles Press Legal | L-4 | FOR EOSTEIN T-MCT | 1620 |
+| 7/24/08 | 1835 | Mrs Taskelo (August) | PBSO | A F RCA T SA RB | 2000 |
+| 7/24/08 | 1850 | Mrs PBEEL AALAR | VC | SA DORM | 2110 |
+| 7/24/08 | 1950 | Mrs Grest AO/MA | VC | SA DORM | 2010 |
+| 7/24/08 | 2000 | Mr. HENRY AA | VC | T-DORM | 2010 |
+| 7/25/08 | 0130 | Curtis Prince | PBSO | T-DORM | 2110 |
+| 7/25/08 | 0730 | Moslem Caitler | 1 | Trenty Staff | 1147 |
+| 7/25/08 | 0732 | Gibbons Arthur | | Drug Farm | 1007 |
+| 7/25/08 | 0733 | Hytower Chelle | | Drug Farm | 1540 |
+| 7/25/08 | 0734 | Weissinger D. | | Drug Farm | 1700 |
+| 7/25/08 | 0740 | Edwinger D. | | Drug Farm | 1710 |
+| 7/25/08 | 857 | Patricie Nelson | PBSO | SQT. OFFICE | |
+| 7/25/08 | 900 | Denna Parkett | PBSO | Kitchen | 900 |
+| 7/25/08 | 930 | Jeffrey Gibson | PBSO | COMPOUND | 1410 |
+| 7/25/08 | 930 | SCOTT CROWES | L | T-SPECIAL | 1244 |
+| 7/25/08 | 956 | CHRISTOPHER CLERK | PBSO | COMPOUND | 1210 |
+| 7/25/08 | 1100 | Timothy Justin | UI | Intelligent | 1100 |
+| 7/25/08 | 1200 | ARCK Goldberger | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1031 |
+| 7/25/08 | 1200 | Mirrante Astoria | L | T-SPECIAL | 1001 |
+
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/24/08 | 01:00 | Emelyn Wilford | PSO | Trinity Staff - QBedg. | 110 |
+| 7/24/08 | 03:59 | Curtis Pinkney | PSO | Trinity Staff - QBedg. | 103 |
+| 7/24/08 | 06:05 | Elizabeth Green | PSO | Trinity Staff - QBedg. | 103 |
+| 7/24/08 | 07:20 | Arthur Troy | PSO | SAAP | 153 |
+| 7/24/08 | 07:28 | Tim Justin | PSO | SAAP | 1600 |
+| 7/24/08 | 07:10 | My Wessman | PSO | SAAP | 1554 |
+| 7/24/08 | 07:45 | Chevelle Hytner | PSO | | 1640 |
+| 7/24/08 | | Deborah Ettensen | PSO | | 1640 |
+| 7/24/08 | 8:10 | Linda (ODX-Z (PD)) | PSO | IC-DORM | 1558 |
+| 7/24/08 | 8:10 | ICITY GRUNA | PSO | Drug Farm | 831 |
+| 7/24/08 | 8:10 | Sarah KORN (DAF.) | PSO | Drug Farm | 1635 |
+| 7/24/08 | 8:31 | George Taborda (PD) | PSO | IC-DORM | 1700 |
+| 7/24/08 | 8:46 | Story Glouces (PARG-Regist.) | LI | T-Special | 934 |
+| 7/24/08 | 8:48 | Rinnyth FOXTOLD (SAAP) | PSO | T-Special | 1215 |
+| 7/24/08 | 8:56 | Gaul Bremner | PI | Drug Farm | 1004 |
+| 7/24/08 | 8:56 | Linda Hewithgreen | LJ | Drug Farm | 1130 |
+| 7/24/08 | 9:02 | Patterson Newby | PSO | Q-Building | 1130 |
+| 7/24/08 | 9:51 | Kay Ogelsby (PD) | PSO | IC-DORM | 1735 |
+| 7/24/08 | 9:55 | Jack Saighne (PD) | PSO | S-DORM | 1050 |
+| 7/24/08 | 10:05 | Mirrark CSTOY | PSO | Q-Building | 110 |
+| 7/24/08 | 10:02 | Anny Valencie | PSO | IC-DORM | 1915 |
+| 7/24/08 | 10:05 | Ondal Tompson | VI | ICS-DORM | 1115 |
+| 7/24/08 | 10:48 | Vinyl II R | PSO | ICS-DORM | 1235 |
+| 7/24/08 | 10:54 | Silver Michael | LJ | ICS-DORM | 1550 |
+| 7/24/08 | 10:35 | Smith Loyd | VI | B-E. Downs | 13:25 |
+| 7/24/08 | 10:40 | Rahol H. ... | VI | Q Bida | 13:25 |
+
+ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 540-2 Entered 05/27/15 Docket 05/07/2010 Page 36 of 52
+ Entered by SA J.S. Docket 05/07/2010 Page 36 of 52
+ Paralyzed Communications System Compliance Committee
+
+
+Central Control
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|-----------|-----------------|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/25/08 | 1245 | Subarish Hedlakanta | PBSO | RB, RIA | 1330 |
+| 7/25/08 | 1311 | Joseph Janio | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1340 |
+| 7/25/08 | 1322 | Jessica Halley | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1455 |
+| 7/25/08 | 1330 | Middan Dice (PBPD) | VI | Infark | 1352 |
+| 7/25/08 | 1336 | Amy, Morse (PD) | VI | FDORM | 1427 |
+| 7/25/08 | 1413 | Sarah Korn | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1655 |
+| 7/25/08 | 1510 | Conrad Saddler | PBSO | IA-DORM | 152 |
+| * 7/25-08 | 1615 | Caules Story | VI | T-special to see inmate Epstein | 1731 |
+| 7/25-08 | 1630 | Alexander D. Stephen | VI | T-special to see inmate Epstein | 200 |
+| 7/25-08 | 1825 | Allen Annett (teachers) | VI | Drug Farm | 1935 |
+| 7-25-08 | 1825 | Glover, Marvin (teachers) | VI | Drug Farm | 1935 |
+| 7-25-08 | 1825 | Gelfand, Clark (teachers) | VI | Drug Farm | 1935 |
+| 7-25-08 | 200 | Wring Otis (Alumni) | VI | Drug Farm | 1935 |
+| 200 | Phillip Stephen | | VI | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 200 | Janes Smith | | VI | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 200 | Thores Fiorini | | VI | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 200 | Jonathan Hart | | VI | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 200 | Kevin Larkin | | VII | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 200 | Rose Rogers | | VII | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 200 | Randall Rich | | VII | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|----------|
+| 7-28-08 | 1750 | Perez, Argel (bible study) | PB50 | Drug Farm | 1909 |
+| 7-28-08 | 1750 | McKenney, Kara (bible study) | V-1 | Drug Farm | 1909 |
+| 7-28-08 | 1800 | Dr. Alexander (Ar) | V-2 | T-special to see inmate Epstein | 1927 |
+| 7-28-08 | 1855 | Quinn, Sean (AD) | L-3 | Booth, Jeremy (SB) | 1930 |
+| 7-28-08 | 2000 | Sherry Erik (AA) | V-1 | Drug Farm | 2110 |
+| 7-28-08 | 2000 | Dumato, Brian (AA) | V-2 | T-dorm | 2100 |
+| 7-28-08 | 2000 | Collins, Hilda | V-3 | C-dorm | 2100 |
+| 7-28-08 | 2005 | Mason, Leonnaie (AH) | L-3 | wrong canpaird #7814 | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/29/08 | 140 | WILFORD TRINITY | PBSO | HITCHEN | 1015 |
+| 7/29/08 | G11 | ELIZABETH WEST TRINITY | PBSO | HITCHEN | 1433 |
+| 7/29/08 | 732 | MR WEST SHAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1552 |
+| 7/29/08 | 741 | MR SIBSON SHAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 12:16 |
+| 7/29/08 | 743 | HIGHTON ER SHAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1550 |
+| 7/29/08 | 744 | HIM JUSTIN SHAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1336 |
+| 07/29/08 | 0756 | Patricia Edelman- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1400 |
+| 07/29/08 | 0820 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1501 |
+| 07/29/08 | 0845 | Nancy Valencia- SAAP | PBSO | T-Dorm. | 1017 |
+| 07/29/08 | 0857 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1750 |
+| 07/29/08 | 0902 | [REDACTED] Dobson- State of Fla. Investigator V-11 | I/M's: [REDACTED], K; Hader, A and Tipton, J | | 1012 |
+| 07/29/08 | 0903 | Darren Indyke- Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Spec.) | 12:14 |
+| 07/29/08 | 0931 | Angeliki Weissinger- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1500 |
+| 07/29/08 | 1002 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1500 |
+| 07/29/08 | 1046 | Robert Swisher- Ellison Services | V-12 | on the compound. | 1902 |
+| 07/29/08 | 1046 | Cruz [REDACTED]- Ellison Services | V-11 | on the compound. | 1013 |
+| 07/29/08 | 1058 | Julia [REDACTED]- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1013 |
+| 07/29/08 | 1121 | Arthur Troy- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1240 |
+| 07/29/08 | 1140 | Caitlin Bronstein- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1614 |
+| 07/29/08 | 12:25 | [REDACTED] Variu- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1621 |
+| 07/29/08 | 1258 | Dena Paquetta- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1540 |
+| 07/29/08 | 1304 | Harry [REDACTED]- Securis Telephone | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1447 |
+| 07/29/08 | 1329 | Jay Lefkowitz- Attorney | L-2 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Spec.) | 1334 |
+| 07/29/08 | 1347 | Evelyn Bannister- Chaplain | PBSO | on the compound to various dorms. | 1512 |
+| 07/29/08 | 1403 | Susan Hendricks- Attorney | L-5 | I/M: Saint Phart, Rodney (F-Dorm). | 1413 |
+
+CASE 9-08-07-0001-9-KAM Document 540-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 39 of 52
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|------------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/30/08 | 13:35 | MS WILFORD TRINITY | PBSO | KITCHEN | 0940 |
+| 7/30/08 | 4:26 | MR. PINHNEY TRINITY | [REDACTED] | KITCHEN | 1250 |
+| 7/30/08 | 7:00 | MS. WILLIAMS CANTEEN | PBSO | VARIOUS | 1120 |
+| 7/30/08 | 7:00 | MS. CRISTILO CANTEEN | PBSO | VARIOUS | 1120 |
+| 7/30/08 | 7:00 | MS. BAILON CANTEEN | PBSO | VARIOUS | 1120 |
+| 7/30/08 | 7:27 | MR WEST SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1552 |
+| 7/30/08 | 7:34 | ARTHUR TROY SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1625 |
+| 7/30/08 | 7:34 | MS BRONSTEIN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1630 |
+| 7/30/08 | 7:38 | TIM JUSTIN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1742 |
+| 7/30/08 | 0755 | ANGELIKI WEININGER (SAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 2008 |
+| 7/30/08 | 0758 | GLORIA GILEON (SAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1455 |
+| 7/30/08 | 0804 | MR. Lefkowitz (Prima-Legal) | V-1 | T-Spec. I/M Epstein, I; | 0930 |
+| 7/30/08 | 0830 | JOHN HABICHT (TRINITY) | PBSO | Q-BLDG | 1421 |
+| 7/30/08 | 0900 | ELTA EMILCAR (TRINITY) | PBSO | Q-BLDG | 1740 |
+| 7/30/08 | 0920 | STORY COWLES (PACA-LEGAL) | L-1 | T-SPECIAL (EPSTEIN, J.) | 103 |
+| 7/30/08 | 0955 | PATRICIA EDELMAN (SAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1558 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1000 | JEFFREY CLARK (BOCA P.P.) | V1 | B-DRUG | 1024 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1000 | SCOTT HANLEY (BOCA P.P.) | V2 | B-DRUG | 1024 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1066 | MEAGAN YOUNG (ASTY) | L2 | VARIOUS | 1207 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1030 | DYANE WILLIAMS (D.G.C.) | V1 | T-SPEC. (EPSTEIN, J.) | 1124 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1247 | Joseph Morganna (D.P.) | L-2 | D.A. SA | 1406 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1330 | FRANK KESSLER (ASTY) | L-3 | RAI8 | 1358 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1413 | JESSICA WALLY (DAF) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1700 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1413 | SARAH KORN (DAF) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1700 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1413 | ROBERT HUMES (DAF) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1700 |
+
+
+
+Central Control
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/30/08 | 1541 | JACK GOLDBERGER (ATM) | L1 | T-SPECIAL (F/M: EPSTEIN, J) | 1635 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1551 | STORY COWLES (PARA-LEGAL) | L2 | T-SPECIAL (F/M: EPSTEIN, J) | 1636 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1559 | DANCE GORDON DAT | ABSD | DANCE FORMA | 1630 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1758 | MR KERYE GORDON | V11 | DANCE FORMA | 1730 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1757 | MR ANDREW TONGAN | ABSD | DANCE FORMA | 1730 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1845 | MR CURTIS (AM) | V1 | DANCE FORMA | 1730 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1930 | MS COMAN AR | V2 | DANCE FORMA | 2015 |
+| 7/30/08 | 1930 | MS MARSHALL AR | V3 | DANCE FORMA | 2010 |
+| 7/30/08 | 2000 | MS SHERRY AR | V4 | DANCE FORMA | 2010 |
+| 7/30/08 | 2000 | MR REGGS AR | V5 | DANCE FORMA | 2105 |
+| 7/31/08 | 0050 | WILFORD Evelyn | PBSD | DANCE STARM | 2125 |
+| 7/31/08 | 0445 | CORTIS PINKEY | PBSD | TRINITY - Quebee | 1021 |
+| 7/31/08 | 0715 | URTHUR TROY | PBSD | TRINITY - Quebee | 1015 |
+| 7/31/08 | 0735 | CAITLEN BROUTEIN | PBSD | SAAP | 1630 |
+| 7/31/08 | 0738 | MILE WEST | PBSD | SAAP | 1623 |
+| 7/31/08 | 0738 | A. Gibson | PBSD | SAAP | 1558 |
+| 7/31/08 | 0745 | DEBORAH ELLINGER | PBSD | SAAP | 1600 |
+| 7/31/08 | 0746 | MS WEYSINGER | PBSD | SAAP | 1600 |
+| 7/31/08 | 805 | SARAH KOHN | PBSD | SAAP | 1742 |
+| 7/31/08 | 848 | MICHAEL SALMIER (PD) | L1 | DIVE FARM | 1655 |
+| 7/31/08 | 857 | MINC TRUE (PD) | PBSD | TITABE | 941 |
+| 7/31/08 | 903 | STORY COWLES | L1 | B-LOCM | 940 |
+| 7/31/08 | 903 | CALL BREMNER | V1 | T-SPECIAL | 1151 |
+| 7/31/08 | 918 | PATRICIA NUCHA | PBSD | DIVE FARM | 1155 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1003 | MIRAEL OSTINA | PBSD | G. BALDWIN | 1155 |
+
+
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+The following circled didnot leave
+
+and have antif
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 7/31/08 | 1134 | Gloria Green | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1623 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1335 | Susan Winston ( PAID ) | VI | compound | 1535 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1307 | Englid Dixon | PBSO | Medical | |
+| 7/31/08 | 1307 | Dixon Reyer | PBSO | Medical | |
+| 7/31/08 | 1332 | Joseph David | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1625 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1356 | Fran Fil-Schin | PBSO | M-Dorm | 150 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1357 | Robert Floraca | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1650 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1408 | Jessica Walley | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1655 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1435 | Rayan Methully | VI | compound | 1450 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1431 | Timothy Justin | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1734 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1441 | Jack Goldstein | VI | T-Special | 1533 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1450 | Robert Franklin | VI | SB-Dorm | 1541 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1500 | Richard Bellaguer | VI | F-Dorm | 1920 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1532 | Arnold Prosperi | VI | T-Special | 1820 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1800 | MAR Graver (Bros Look) | VI | T-Mot (DBSTeam) | 1920 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1810 | MAR GLOVER (Torrer) | VI | Dose Farm | 1907 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1860 | MAR ARLEN (Torrer) | VI | Dose Farm | 2000 |
+| 7/31/08 | 1900 | MAR Foxey (AA) | VI | Dose Farm | 2000 |
+| 8/1/08 | 0130 | Curtis Pinker | PBSO | SB - Dorm | 2000 |
+| 8/1/08 | 0719 | Mr. Deborah Ettinger | PBSO | Trusty SAAP Guebec | 1100 |
+| 8/1/08 | 0719 | Arthur Toy | PBSO | SAAP ? Who is this person? | |
+| 8/1/08 | 0725 | Rat Edelman | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1130 |
+| 8/1/08 | 0740 | Michael West | PBSO | SAAP | 1100 |
+| 8/1/08 | 0740 | Gebion | PBSO | SAAP | 1550 |
+| 8/1/08 | 0742 | Castlin Brosterin | PBSO | SAAP | 1129 |
+| | | | PBSO | SAAP | 1178 |
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|----------------|
+| 08/01/08 | 0905 | Nicole Bolden- Law of David Jayne | V-17 | I/M: Arthur Saxton (RA-Dorm). | 0928 |
+| 08/01/08 | 0910 | Story Crowles- Para Legal | L-1 | I/M: Jeffrey Epstein (T-Special). | 1325 |
+| 08/01/08 | 0915 | Nicole Dimasi- State of Fla(Investigator) | V-6 | Various dorms to see inmates. | 1027 |
+| 08/01/08 | 0926 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | |
+| 08/01/08 | 1009 | ██████████ - State of Fla. | V-15 | Variosu dorms to see inmates. | 1725 1113 |
+| 08/01/08 | 1157 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1835 |
+| 08/01/08 | 1224 | Det. Ivanovic- Deputy | PBSO | I/M: Levi, Sheri (C-Dorm). | 1310 |
+| 08/01/08 | 1230 | Pablo ██████████ - DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1550 |
+| 08/01/08 | 1231 | Arthur Troy- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1 021 1 005 |
+| 08/01/08 | 1233 | Patricia Edelman- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1 021 1 005 |
+| 08/01/08 | 1220 | Caitlin Bronstein- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1 021 1 350 |
+| 08/01/08 | 13:26 | Goldenberger Jack | A-4 | T dorm | 1 024 1 054 |
+| 08/01/08 | 1330 | G. Scott Penney- Public Defender | PBSP | various dorms to see inmates. | 1 024 1 054 |
+| 08/01/08 | 1412 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | drug Farm AREA. | 1 024 1 054 |
+| 08/01/08 | 1412 | Sarah Korn- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1 024 1 054 |
+| 08/01/08 | 1436 | Justin Timothy- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1 024 1 054 |
+| 08/01/08 | 1439 | Kenneth Huxhold-SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1 024 1 054 |
+| 08/01/08 | ***** C SHIFT ***** # 7816 | ***** C SHIFT ***** # 7816 | ***** | ***** | ***** |
+| 8-1-08 | 1805 | Coules Story (Public Def. Teachers) | L-4 | T-special to see inmate Epstein | 1950 |
+| 8-1-08 | 1880 | Annette Allen (Teachers) | V-2 | Drug Farm | 1730 |
+| 8-1-08 | 1830 | Gelfand Clark (Teachers) | V-4 | Drug Farm | 1730 |
+| 8-1-08 | 1832 | Glover Marvin (Teachers) | V-3 | Drug Farm | 1730 |
+| 8-1-08 | 2000 | Arzecho Luwany (Alumni) | V-4 | Drug Farm | 2006 |
+| 8-1-08 | 2000 | Florini Thomas (Alumni) | V-5 | Drug Farm | 2006 |
+| 8-1-08 | 2000 | Lackin, Kevin | V-6 | Drug Farm | 2106 |
+
+Central Control
+
+32
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 08/02/08 | 0135 | Curtis Pinbrey | PBSO | Trinity Staff | |
+| 08/02/08 | 0725 | Rent Hunger | PBSO | Drug Farm | 9 02 |
+| 8/2/08 | 018 | Stephen Alexander (Dr) | VI | T-Special | 1105 |
+| 8/2/08 | 905 | Mirande Ostring | PBSO | Q-Building | 1105 |
+| 8/2/08 | 95 | Sharon Williams | PBSO | T-Docm | 1734 |
+| 8/2/08 | 956 | Story Crowles | VI | T-Special | 9 05 |
+| 8/2/08 | 956 | Elte Emilcel | PBSO | Q-Building | 1316 |
+| 8-2-08 | 1306 | Joseph Pagano | PBSO | EStein Jeffery | 18 05 |
+| 8/2/08 | 1540 | Arnold Prosperi | VI | T-Special | 15 02 |
+| 8/3/08 | 1834 | Story Crowles | VI | T-Special | 1655 |
+| 8/3/08 | 1740 | Richard Chicke | VI | T-Special | 8 04 |
+| 8/3/08 | 0135 | Evelyn Wilford | PBSO | Trinity Staff | 2 05 |
+| 8/3/08 | 0739 | Patricia Eddinger | PBSO | SAAP | 13 02 |
+| 8/3/08 | 8 02 | Timothy Jesting | PBSO | Drug Farm | 120 2 |
+| 8/3/08 | 905 | Mirande Ostring | PBSO | Q-Building | 1100 |
+| 8/3/08 | 925 | Story Crowles | VI | T-Special | 180 0 |
+| 8/3/08 | 1000 | Elte Emilcel | PBSO | Q-Building | 1100 |
+| 8/3/08 | 1000 | Joseph Pagano | VI | T-Special | 1810 |
+| 8/3/08 | 1518 | Story Crowles | VI | T-Special | 1220 |
+| 8/3/08 | 1545 | Arnold Prosperi | VI | T-Special | 18 45 |
+| 8/3/08 | 1947 | Janes Smith (IAA) | VI | T-Docm | 17 05 |
+| 8/4/08 | 0638 | Elizabeth Green | PBSO | Trinity | 2 10 |
+| 8/4/08 | 0130 | Evelyn Wilford | PBSO | Trinity | 22 00 |
+| 8/4/08 | 0720 | Patricia Eddinger | PBSO | Trinity | 1343 |
+| 8/4/08 | 0728 | Arthur Roy | PBSO | Trinity Drug Farm | 1105 |
+
+
+
+Central Control
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|--------|---------|-----------------------------|----------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/4/08 | 0733 | Sibbono Ollen | PBSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 8/4/08 | 0733 | Grostlein Cutler | PBSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 8/4/08 | 0740 | Granes | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1418 |
+| 8/4/08 | 0740 | West Mike | PBSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 8/4/08 | 0743 | Jue Wilcot | PBSO | Drug Farm | 100 |
+| 8/4/08 | 0743 | McCusserberg | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1733 |
+| 8/4/08 | 805 | John Habight | PBSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 8/4/08 | 830 | Robert Crifton | LI | Q-Building | 1497 |
+| 8/4/08 | 910 | Patriciana Acuby | PBSO | T-Special | 1040 |
+| 8/4/08 | 927 | Chris Suarez | PBSO | Q-Building | 1719 |
+| 8/4/08 | 940 | Pablo Gonzalez (DAF) | PBSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 8/4/08 | 1015 | Story Cawles | L-2 | T-Special | 1500 |
+| 8/4/08 | 1177 | Wade Piteyer | UI | Medical / nurse whitten | 1305 |
+| 8/4/08 | 1157 | Mirande Ostrig | PBSO | Q-Building | 1204 |
+| 8-4-08 | 12:24 | VANCE, SHAWN | V-11 | Leonard Shane (S.B. DORM) | 1840 |
+| 8-4-08 | 12:42 | SILVA, RDWIN (BIO-SPEC) | PBSOV-12 | MEDICAL | 1215 |
+| 8-4-08 | 12:42 | CLARK, DAMON (BIO-SPEC) | PBSOV-12 | MEDICAL | |
+| 8/4/08 | 1331 | T-EFFRY JUDY | PBSO | SB-DORM | |
+| 8/4/08 | 1414 | Robert Hunts | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1400 |
+| 8/4/08 | 1455 | Jerry Wade | | SB-DORM | 1054 |
+| 8-4-08 | 550 | Story Cawles (P.O.) | L-1 | T-Special | 1500 |
+| 8/4/08 | 1830 | Angel Poez | PBSO | Drug Farm | 225 |
+| 8/4/08 | 1830 | Joan Lawlos | C-6 | Drug Farm | 930 |
+| 8-4-08 | 1855 | Williams Daloris | PBSO | Cleany Church Services | 930 |
+| 8-4-08 | 1900 | Sweeney Sally (AA) | V-2 | Colorado (AA member) | 2003 |
+
+No 2nd to not client arrived to the transit course
+
+Enter Session Paragraph
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/NMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|--------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/5/08 | 1406 | JARAH KORN (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1654 |
+| 8/5/08 | 1406 | JESSICA WALLY (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1654 |
+| 8/5/08 | 1406 | ROBERT HUMES (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1654 |
+| 8/5/08 | M21 | SCOTT PENNEY (P.D.) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1651 |
+| 8/5/08 | 1440 | JOSHUA LEROY (P.D.) | PBJO | VARIOUS | 1657 |
+| 8/5/08 | 1440 | ANTHUR MILLER (P.D.) | PBJO | VARIOUS | 1637 |
+| 8/5/08 | 1801 | JOSEPH PAGANO (PAGA-LEGOL) | L1 | T-SPECIAL | 1846 |
+| 8/5/08 | 1544 | LEONARDO TROBORA | PBJO | | Mail 5 |
+| 8-5-08 | 1800 | Glover Markin | V-1 | Drug Farm | 1627 |
+| 8-5-08 | 1800 | Allen Annette | V-2 | Drug Farm | 1950 |
+| 8-5-08 | 1830 | Bernstein, Andrew | V-11 | C-doem (credit candeling) | 1950 |
+| 8-5-08 | 1805 | Prosperi Arnold | L-1 | T-Special to Epstein Jeffrey | 1938 |
+| 8-5-08 | 1835 | Star / Austen Cowles | C- | T-Special | 1915 |
+| 8-5-08 | 1845 | Dimasi Nichole | L-3 | Dodane Joe (T) Binnit Gend (SA) | 2018 |
+| 8-5-08 | 1845 | Khauey Melanie | L-9 | " Dodane Joe (T) Binnit Gend (SA) same | 1970 |
+| 8-5-08 | 1850 | Parker Deborah | C-3 | Clergy (church services) | 2007 |
+| 8-5-08 | 1850 | Barr Wallace | C-4 | Clergy (church services) | 2007 |
+| 8-5-08 | 1900 | Prescott Deborah | C-2 | Caldem (Drug Form Bible) | 2007 |
+| 8-5-08 | 1900 | William Robert | C-1 | T-doem (Drug Form Bible) | 1959 |
+| 8-5-08 | 1900 | Lulak Thomas | PBJO | C-doem (Drug Form Bible) | 2007 |
+| 8-5-08 | 1901 | Licata Evan | C-5 | Church Services | 2007 |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+Central Control
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 8-5-08 | 0140 | EVELYN WILFORD / TRINITY | PB50 | KITCHEN | 1157 |
+| 8-5-08 | 0619 | ELIZABETH GREEN / TRINITY | PB50 | KITCHEN | 1429 |
+| 8-5-08 | 0741 | ARTHUR TROY | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1155 |
+| 8-5-08 | 0723 | PATRICIA FOELMAN | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1108 |
+| 8-5-08 | 0723 | GARY GIBSON | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1555 |
+| 8-5-08 | 0725 | MAICHAEL WEST | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1451 |
+| 8-5-08 | 0727 | CAITLIN BRONSTIEN | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1453 |
+| 8-5-08 | 0727 | ANGELIKI WEINMAN | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 142 |
+| 8-5-08 | 0740 | SUDAN WILKOFF | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1451 |
+| 8/5/08 | 0751 | GLORIP GREEN (SAAP) | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 11030 |
+| 8/5/08 | 0759 | JOHN HABICHT (TRINITY) | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1453 |
+| 8/5/08 | 0900 | ELTA EMILLIAR (TRINITY) | PB50 | G-BLDG | 1508 |
+| 8/5/08 | 0939 | STORY COWLEY (PARA-LEGAL) | G-BLDG | | 1754 |
+| 8/5/08 | 1005 | PATRICIA NEWBY (TRINITY) | G-BLDG | T-SPECIAL (I/M: EPSTEIN, J) | 1246 |
+| 8/5/08 | 1015 | VERONIQUE VALERY (P.D.) | PB50 | G-BLDG | 1901 |
+| 8/65/08 | 1021 | AARON CLEMENS (P.D.) | PB50 | F-BLDG | 1068 |
+| 8/05/08 | 1022 | JOSHUA BASTIAN (P.D.) | VI | D-PORM | 1150 |
+| 8/05/08 | 1132 | LLOYD SMITH (VULCAN POST) | VI | G. MORRIS | 1050 |
+| 8/02/08 | 1243 | CONRAD JADDIER (PRETRIPL) | PB50 | ADMIN ARENA | 1157 |
+| 8/5/08 | 1246 | NANCY VALENCIA (SAAP) | PB50 | G/H | 1258 |
+| 8/5/08 | 1250 | JOWEN VAROY (SAAP) | PB50 | T-DORM | 1414 |
+| 8/5/08 | B30 | Kenneth Huxhold | PB50 | DRUG FARM | |
+| 8/5/08 | 1337 | Tabolo Gonzaloz | PB50 | Drug Farm | |
+| 8/5/08 | 1345 | No. Grey Tesh | G-BLDG | Drug Farm | 1555 |
+| 8/5/08 | 1350 | Huxhold Banks | G-BLDG | Drug Farm | 1501 |
+| 8/5/08 | | Pills | PB50 | T-DORM (Freddy Eward) | |
+
+
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|--------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|------------------------|
+| 8/6/08 | 138 | EVELYN WILFORD TRINITY | PBSO | KITCHEN | 170 1111 |
+| 8/6/08 | 530 | MR PINKNEY TRINITY | PBSO | KITCHEN | 170 1111 |
+| 8/6/08 | 640 | ELIZABETH GREEN TRINITY | PBSO | KITCHEN | 120 120 |
+| 8/6/08 | 700 | WILLIAMS CANTEEN | PBSO | KITCHEN | 140 140 |
+| 8/6/08 | 700 | BAILON CANTEEN | PBSO | VARIOUS | --- |
+| 8/6/08 | 725 | ARTHYR TROY SAAP | PBSO | VARIOUS | --- |
+| 8/6/08 | 729 | JARY OIBSON SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1630 1630 |
+| 8/6/08 | 730 | PATRICIA EDELMAN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1535 1535 |
+| 8/6/08 | 731 | SEOLINO CANTEEN | PBSO | DRUG FARM | --- |
+| 8/6/08 | 732 | MS BRONSTIEV SAAP | PBSO | VARIOUS | --- |
+| 8/6/08 | 747 | MS WESSENSER SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | --- |
+| 8/6/08 | 750 | MS WESSENSER SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1610 1610 |
+| 8/6/08 | 0820 | JOHN HABICHT (TRINITY) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1750 1750 |
+| 8/6/08 | 0858 | ELTA EMILCAR (TRINITY) | PBSO | Q-BLOG | 1459 1459 |
+| 8/6/08 | 0920 | DONALD CARTER (PARALEGAL) | VI | T-SPECIAL (I/M: EPSTEIN, S.) | 1750 1750 |
+| 8/6/08 | 0942 | TATIANA BERJUCH (P.D.) | PBSO | C-Comforted | 11:00 11:00 |
+| 8/6/08 | 0955 | MS. Kelly Ann Crowle | VI | C-Dorm | 11:00 11:00 |
+| 8/6/08 | 0955 | MS. Carol Dowell Limbaugh | VI | C-Dorm | 1045 1045 |
+| 8/6/08 | 0955 | Attorney Story A. Cowles | PBSO | C-Dorm | 1045 1045 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1005 | Jaianna Seabrome | PBSO | T-Dorm - I/M Eistein, Jeffrey | 1301 1301 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1015 | Attorney Jason Cromey | PBSO | F-building + C-Dorm | 1045 1045 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1030 | Attorney James Snowden | L-4 | F-building | 1209 1209 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1053 | MR. Roby Abreston | L-2 | A-Dorm | 11:00 11:00 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1150 | MR. Erik Kristopper Jensen | V-3 | Gas meters/Compound | 11:15 11:15 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1200 | PATRICIA NOWBY (TRINITY) | PBSO | GPL meters/Compound | 1208 1208 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1227 | MICHAEL DIAZ (P.D.) | PBSO | Q-BLOG | --- |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+*Central Control*
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|--------|---------|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/6/08 | 1314 | SCOTT FENNEY (P.D.) | PBJD | VARIOUS | 1443 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1327 | PABLO GONZALEZ (DAF) | PBJD | DRUG FARM | 1443 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1333 | CHRIS FINKLEY (FIGLE INSPECT) | VI | SEADORF | 1326 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1408 | JENICA WALLY (DAF) | PBJD | DILUG FARM | 1409 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1408 | SARAH KORN (DAF) | PBJD | DRUG FARM | 1658 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1417 | ROBERT HUMES (DAF) | PBJD | DRUG FARM | 1158 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1450 | MICHAEL TAKIFF (ATTY) | PBJD | DRUG FARM | 1650 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1500 | MICHAEL TEINCATTY | L1 | SA-DORM | 1548 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1800 | MR AMOGASUN IZOTANA | PBJD | T-SPECIAL (I/M: EPITEIN, J) | 1500 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1895 | MS GILVER | PBJD | DRUG FARM | 1540 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1895 | MR BILLIA | PBJD | CLINICAL | 1555 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1895 | MR COATES | C1 | CLINICAL | 1555 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1900 | MR COLON | C2 | CLINICAL | 1555 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1900 | MS COHN | V1 | DRUG FARM | 1555 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1915 | MR COWLEY ADALA | V2 | DRUG FARM | 1955 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1940 | MR CHARMAN ATTY | V1 | DRUG FARM | 1955 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1955 | MR HOOPER (AA) | V2 | T-MAIL MA COSTERN | 20595 |
+| 8/6/08 | 2235 | MR THOMPSON | V1 | BROWN, & ARCH FB | 2028 |
+| 8/6/08 | 1945 | MR BEAKINS (AA) | PBJD | DRUG FARM | 2100 |
+| 8/6/08 | | | V1 | INFO SYSTEMS - MEDICAL | 2310 |
+| 8/6/08 | | | V1 | T-DORM | 2105 |
+| 8/6/08 | | | | | |
+| 8/6/08 | | | | | |
+| 8/6/08 | | | | | |
+| 8/6/08 | | | | | |
+| 8/6/08 | | | | | |
+
+Case 9-000-000119-KAM Document 540-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 49 of 52
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|--------|---------|-----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/7/08 | 0145 | EVELYN WILFORD / TRINITY | PBSO | KITCHEN | |
+| 8/7/08 | 0453 | CURTIS PINKNEY / TRINITY | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1015 |
+| 8/7/08 | 0637 | ELIZABETH GREEN / TRINITY | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1208 |
+| 8/7/08 | 0714 | ARTHUR TROY / SAAP | PBSO | KITCHEN | |
+| 8/7/08 | 0727 | GARY GIBSON / SAAP | PBSO | KITCHEN DRUG FARM | 1618 |
+| 8/7/08 | 0753 | CATHERINE CAITLIN BROWSTON / SAAP | PBSO | KITCHEN DRUG FARM | 1508 |
+| 8/7/08 | 0735 | ANGELIKI WEISSMAN / SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1618 |
+| 8/7/08 | 0739 | JOHN HABICHT / TRINITY | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1740 |
+| 8/7/08 | 0743 | PATRICIA EDELMAN / SAAP | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1455 |
+| 8/7/08 | 0752 | MICHAEL WEST / SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1614 |
+| 8/7/08 | 0752 | SUSAN WILKOFF / SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1625 |
+| 8/7/08 | 800 | Gloria Green | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1730 |
+| 8/7/08 | 807 | Sarah Korn | PBSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 8/7/08 | 844 | Story Cloutes | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1700 |
+| 8/7/08 | 900 | Linda Hauthorne | LI | T-Special | 1203 |
+| 8/7/08 | 900 | Geel Bremner | V3 | Drug Farm | 1135 |
+| 8/7/08 | 911 | Patricia Hueby | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1135 |
+| 8/7/08 | 956 | Mirande Osting | PBSO | Q Building | 1718 |
+| 8/7/08 | 1016 | James Elschberg (PD) | L3 | Q Building | 1255 |
+| 8/7/08 | 123 | Robert Fuller (Process) | VI | F-Dorm | 049 |
+| 8/7/08 | 1337 | Publo Gonzalez | PBSO | F-Dorm | 1240 |
+| 8/7/08 | 1400 | Amy Morse (PD) | LI | F-Dorm | 1447 |
+| 8/7/08 | 1405 | Robert Humes | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1440 |
+| 8/7/08 | 1405 | Jessica Welley | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1652 |
+| 8/7/08 | 1444 | Patrick McKenney | LI | SB-Dorm | 1700 |
+| 8/7/08 | 1444 | Diana McKenney | LI | SB-Dorm | 1810 |
+
+Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 540-2 Entered on ESP - Booket 05/07/2010 Page 50 of 52 Entry Session Paralepsi hsph@plc.com
+
+C-shift
+
+PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG
+
+Central Control
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|--------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/8/08 | 1555 | Reinhardt Bruce | L-2 | Top special to see inmate Epstein | 1739 |
+| 8/8/08 | 1945 | Goellnitz Helmut (Alumni) | V-1 | "Drug Farm" | 2107 |
+| 8/8/08 | 1945 | Arocho Jawony (Alumni) | V-2 | " " | 2107 |
+| 8/8/08 | 1945 | Skepners Phillip (Alumni) | V-3 | " " | 2107 |
+| 8/8/08 | 1945 | Fidrini Thomas (Alumni) | V-4 | " " | 2107 |
+| 8/8/08 | 1945 | Bollet, Steventone (PLUM) | V-5 | " " | 2107 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+Central Control
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|--------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/7/08 | 1:58 | STORY CROWLES | U | T-SPECIAL | 1725 |
+| 8/7/08 | 1:08 | STORY CROWLES | U | T-MGT- PARA LEGAL DISTRIB | 1725 |
+| 8/7/08 | 1:15 | MR BERNSTEIN COUNSELOR | VII | T-DORM- SOCIAL RE | 1925 |
+| 8/7/08 | 1:25 | SCOTT SCHEINHARD PROBS | U | STARCH, A RA | 1935 |
+| 8/7/08 | 1:45 | MR WOLFF AA | U | SA - MEETING | 1905 |
+| 8/7/08 | 1:45 | MR PRATICE AA | U | SA - MEETING | 2000 |
+| 8-8-08 | 0:30 | C.C. Printer Yellow | PBSO | SA MEETING | 2000 |
+| 8-8-08 | 7:20 | Mr. Troy Drug Farm | PBSO | Quebee | — |
+| 8-8-08 | 7:26 | Mr. West Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1000 |
+| 8-8-08 | 7:30 | Mr. Gibson Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1535 |
+| 8-8-08 | 7:38 | Mr. Bersten Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1535 |
+| 8-8-08 | 7:44 | Mr. Nessaner Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1000 |
+| 8/8/08 | 9:01 | Pattercha Meeting | PBSO | Drug Farm | 139 |
+| 8/8/08 | 9:08 | STORY CROWLES | U | Q-Building | 1659 |
+| 8/8/08 | 10:05 | Lindsay Hanson (PD) | PBSO | T-SPECIAL | 1146 |
+| 8/8/08 | 10:15 | Carol Fidders (DATA) | V | U/M- DORM, A | 1056 |
+| 8/8/08 | 13:15 | Travis, Tech Coom | V | Drug Farm W/ Gloria | 1419 |
+| 8/8/08 | 12:00 | Miracle Ostring | PBSO | SA DORM | 1324 |
+| 8/8/08 | 12:15 | Jeffrey Llory (?) | PBSO | Q-Building | — |
+| 8/8/08 | 13:15 | Joseph Vannu | PBSO | SJ-DORM | — |
+| 8/8/08 | 14:15 | Kenneth Huxhold (?) | PBSO | Drug Farm | — |
+| 8/8/08 | 14:15 | Juan Murcicio | U | Gym | — |
+| 8/8/08 | 14:15 | John Delre | U | Gym | 1503 |
+| 8/8/08 | 14:18 | Pessica Coulley | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1503 |
+| 8/8/08 | 14:18 | Sarah Korn | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1656 |
+| 8/8/08 | 15:25 | Starch / Miracle | U | Drug Farm | 1656 |
+
++HUS- Unanswered to U.P.D.
+
+Case 9:08-cv-8010-SKAM Document 540-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 52 of 52
+ESP Extra Service Paralegal
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/EFTA02749271.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/EFTA02749271.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d5b143a1e35921abb2d9ccbb63248770c301d36
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/EFTA02749271.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,2912 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 52,
+ "chars": 180782,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 286.8,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_22_Picture_14.jpeg",
+ "_page_29_Picture_17.jpeg",
+ "_page_34_Picture_15.jpeg",
+ "_page_39_Picture_15.jpeg",
+ "_page_40_Picture_18.jpeg",
+ "_page_43_Picture_16.jpeg",
+ "_page_46_Picture_19.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "EXHIBIT I \nPart 1 of 3",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 192.78000000000003,
+ 238.10418701171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 429.8376159667969,
+ 238.10418701171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 429.8376159667969,
+ 364.8505554199219
+ ],
+ [
+ 192.78000000000003,
+ 364.8505554199219
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Visitor Information For Inmate : JEFF EPSTEIN",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 21.075000000000003,
+ 3.0650000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 341.415,
+ 3.0650000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 341.415,
+ 39.845
+ ],
+ [
+ 21.075000000000003,
+ 39.845
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Visitor Information For Inmate : JEFF EPSTEIN",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 5.901,
+ 23.294
+ ],
+ [
+ 328.1701965332031,
+ 23.294
+ ],
+ [
+ 328.1701965332031,
+ 46.588
+ ],
+ [
+ 5.901,
+ 46.588
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Visitor Information For inmate \n02/26/09 : JEFF EPSTEIN",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 17.703,
+ 6.13
+ ],
+ [
+ 338.2056884765625,
+ 6.13
+ ],
+ [
+ 338.2056884765625,
+ 39.845000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 17.703,
+ 39.845000000000006
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 257.95799999999997,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.95,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.95,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 257.95799999999997,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 251.214,
+ 32.489
+ ],
+ [
+ 540.3629999999999,
+ 32.489
+ ],
+ [
+ 540.3629999999999,
+ 80.303
+ ],
+ [
+ 251.214,
+ 80.303
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 250.371,
+ 28.197999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 28.197999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 77.851
+ ],
+ [
+ 250.371,
+ 77.851
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 29.750000000000004,
+ 304.286
+ ],
+ [
+ 76.16,
+ 304.286
+ ],
+ [
+ 76.16,
+ 592.1940000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 29.750000000000004,
+ 592.1940000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 34.941
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 34.941
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 77.851
+ ],
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 77.851
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 246.156,
+ 28.197999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 28.197999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 77.851
+ ],
+ [
+ 246.156,
+ 77.851
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \" CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 250.371,
+ 25.133
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.206,
+ 25.133
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.206,
+ 86.43299999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 250.371,
+ 86.43299999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 247.84199999999998,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.8340000000001,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.8340000000001,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 247.84199999999998,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \" CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 26.971999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.148,
+ 26.971999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.148,
+ 87.65899999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 87.65899999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \" CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 85.82000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 85.82000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 33.714999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 33.714999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 79.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 79.69
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \" CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 246.156,
+ 28.811
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.148,
+ 28.811
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.148,
+ 88.27199999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 246.156,
+ 88.27199999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 243.62699999999998,
+ 26.971999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 26.971999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 79.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 243.62699999999998,
+ 79.69
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \" CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 252.89999999999998,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.735,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.735,
+ 82.75500000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 252.89999999999998,
+ 82.75500000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \" CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 30.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 30.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 88.88499999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 88.88499999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 28.811
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 28.811
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 74.786
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 74.786
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 257.115,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.95,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.95,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 257.115,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 243.62699999999998,
+ 34.328
+ ],
+ [
+ 532.776,
+ 34.328
+ ],
+ [
+ 532.776,
+ 79.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 243.62699999999998,
+ 79.69
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 250.371,
+ 28.197999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 28.197999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 250.371,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 251.214,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.206,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.206,
+ 73.56
+ ],
+ [
+ 251.214,
+ 73.56
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 251.214,
+ 25.133
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.206,
+ 25.133
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.206,
+ 77.851
+ ],
+ [
+ 251.214,
+ 77.851
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS \nOFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \n\" CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 25.133000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.7406616210938,
+ 25.133000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.7406616210938,
+ 85.82000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 85.82000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 242.784,
+ 28.811
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.619,
+ 28.811
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.619,
+ 73.56
+ ],
+ [
+ 242.784,
+ 73.56
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 241.94099999999997,
+ 27.585
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.933,
+ 27.585
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.933,
+ 77.238
+ ],
+ [
+ 241.94099999999997,
+ 77.238
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "le \u2022 PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE \nDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS \nOFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 31,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 37.844024658203125,
+ 28.198
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 28.198
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 74.786
+ ],
+ [
+ 37.844024658203125,
+ 74.786
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 32,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 27.369999999999997,
+ 307.734
+ ],
+ [
+ 77.35,
+ 307.734
+ ],
+ [
+ 77.35,
+ 596.5039999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 27.369999999999997,
+ 596.5039999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 33,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 61.3
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 61.3
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 33,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 320.34,
+ 59.461
+ ],
+ [
+ 458.59200000000004,
+ 59.461
+ ],
+ [
+ 458.59200000000004,
+ 74.173
+ ],
+ [
+ 320.34,
+ 74.173
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 34,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 254.586,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 544.578,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 544.578,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 254.586,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 35,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 36,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 246.156,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.991,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.991,
+ 77.851
+ ],
+ [
+ 246.156,
+ 77.851
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 37,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 247.84199999999998,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 540.3629999999999,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 540.3629999999999,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 247.84199999999998,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 38,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.0319999999999,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.0319999999999,
+ 74.173
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 74.173
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 39,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 29.424000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 29.424000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 40,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 29.424000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 29.424000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 41,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 233.51100000000002,
+ 29.424000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 523.503,
+ 29.424000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 523.503,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 233.51100000000002,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 42,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 234.354,
+ 30.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 523.503,
+ 30.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 523.503,
+ 77.851
+ ],
+ [
+ 234.354,
+ 77.851
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 43,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 27.585
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 27.585
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 79.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 79.69
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 44,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 45,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 252.057,
+ 25.133
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.735,
+ 25.133
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.735,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 252.057,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 46,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 246.999,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.991,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.991,
+ 77.851
+ ],
+ [
+ 246.999,
+ 77.851
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 47,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 246.999,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.8340000000001,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.8340000000001,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 246.999,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 48,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 49,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 25.133
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.148,
+ 25.133
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.148,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 50,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 51,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 25.133
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 25.133
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 74.786
+ ],
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 74.786
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 493
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 95
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 654
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 112
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 427
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 41
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 31,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 437
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 32,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 33,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 34,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 35,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 36,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 37,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 38,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 39,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 40,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 41,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 42,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 429
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 43,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 44,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 45,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 46,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 47,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 48,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 49,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 50,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 51,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749271"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_22_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_22_Picture_14.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a30df1fa7856c5a4d921c63938724a7ff9d16175
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_22_Picture_14.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:ce7cb875536f7b29e6dafb7c34437996a2affa67f8b48ad6bea0738da9497af6
+size 4309
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_29_Picture_17.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_29_Picture_17.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..45ec4bd1fcdf8c7c8c3e7bc157d49a91c0d9595b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_29_Picture_17.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:9e83d9215935a1a2ace01680cb24c543a1ec6d662a0d0e2a48a2c8831e84fd1f
+size 3506
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_34_Picture_15.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_34_Picture_15.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b473d5085128aa0c1c899876a76b932e20bb5f67
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_34_Picture_15.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:a0ef1849acda60abef5a5f8c824bbebc6464d933cd6e3ac9a5e1d59488cd3ed2
+size 4317
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_39_Picture_15.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_39_Picture_15.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c9657dfbe2faf525f29f5eb45c2a931821d92c52
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_39_Picture_15.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:b1ccbffa64cfa76824e9ebd2353346cb32595476d1eed53d84e2de9418c4dccd
+size 4314
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_40_Picture_18.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_40_Picture_18.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7bee39ec3bf53ec3f825a44f2957ed20f71103e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_40_Picture_18.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:39508860d4ca5960bfdefaf7f8ca9d71819193dd915bb7ece0d6de5ad3d02e71
+size 4058
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_43_Picture_16.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_43_Picture_16.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..804cc4935799bc99eac892b5fd1e480809141423
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_43_Picture_16.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:07ee32a69e9bdf5d2bd8b4ad1b5075169217719cc51930b6d0214a5fce37c4e4
+size 2595
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_46_Picture_19.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_46_Picture_19.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..39207c5d012cb758c9b57197903ea9986194491d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749271/_page_46_Picture_19.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:3c145ba242a15065e84967736bdb640adf53578d9949f6af648b6aebdb56be7a
+size 4350
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/EFTA02749323.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/EFTA02749323.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..819d39be4e5af1b2d4248cf5c096110dced76f24
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/EFTA02749323.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2838 @@
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+# EXHIBIT I Part 2 of 3
+
+Central Control
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|----------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/9/08 | 134 | MR. PINTNEY TRINITY | PBSD | HITCHEN | 1055 |
+| 8/9/08 | 734 | JESSICA WALLY PRINTER | PBSD | DRUG FARM | 1055 |
+| 8-9-09 | 0850 | Indyke Darren | L-1 | T-Special to see inmate Eostein | 1100 |
+| 8-9-09 | 0850 | Osting Mirborde (Trinity) | PBSD | Trinity - Q-building | 1035 |
+| 8-9-09 | 0859 | Legry Linds (united Deliverance) | PBSD | Linds for services | 1730 |
+| 8-9-09 | 1015 | Emilcar Elta (Trinity) | PBSD | Trinity - Q-building | 1915 |
+| 8-9-09 | 1155 | Indyke Darren (Attorney) | L-1 | T-Special to see inmate Eostein | 1854 |
+| 8-9-09 | 1425 | Viranek Thomas (F.M.) | PBSD | (Facility) towark on U/medical & T | 1631 |
+| 8-9-09 | 1505 | Pagano Joseph (Attorney) | L-3 | T-Special to see inmate Eostein | 185 |
+| 8-9-09 | 1435 | Fleischman Jack | L-3 | various Areas (T/M/F) | 1629 |
+| 8-10-08 | 1:09 | ELIZABETH 9 REEV TRINITY | PBSD | HITCHEN | 1535 |
+| 8/10/08 | 825 | Angelicci Wissilinga | PBSD | Drug farm | 950 |
+| 8/10/08 | 905 | Darren Indyke | L | T-Special | 1210 |
+| 8/10/08 | 905 | Mircinde Osting | PBSD | Q-Building | 1031 |
+| 8/10/08 | 905 | SUSAN WILKOFF | PBSD | Drug farm | 1730 |
+| 8/10/08 | 980 | SCOTT QUINN | L | L-DOCM | 1241 |
+| 8/10/08 | 1018 | Elta Emilcar | PBSD | Q-Building | 950 |
+| 8/10/08 | 1200 | Darren Indyke | L | T-Special | 1851 |
+| 8/10/08 | 1438 | Jack Goldberga | L | T-Special | 1510 |
+| 8/10/08 | 1500 | Joseph Pagano | L | T-Special | 1556 |
+| 8/10/08 | 1455 | Hadam Buccini (PA) | VI | T-Special | 1791 |
+| 8/11/08 | 0130 | WIRTS PINTNEY (Trinity) | VI | T-DOCM | 2100 |
+| 8-11-08 | 0634 | Deborah King | PBSD | Kitchen | 1020 |
+| 8-11-08 | 0642 | Elizabeth Breen (Trinity) | PBSD | Drug farm | 1544 |
+| 8-11-08 | 723 | Patricia Edelman | PBSD | Kitchen | 1435 |
+| 8-11-08 | 778 | ANN MAD TRINITY | PBSD | Drug farm | |
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|----------|
+| 8-11-08 | 783 | Caitlin Bronstein | PBSD | Drug farm | 16056 |
+| 8-11-08 | 736 | Gary Gibson | PBSD | Drug farm | 16056 |
+| 8-11-08 | 745 | Michael Luest | PBSD | Drug farm | 1602 |
+| 8-11-08 | 746 | John Habicht | PBSD | Drug farm | 1602 |
+| 8-11-08 | 748 | Chevelle Hytzwer | PBSD | Drug farm | 1437 |
+| 8/11/08 | 756 | Titty Green | PBSD | Drug farm | 1604 |
+| 8/11/08 | 906 | Patricia Frieby | PBSD | Drug farm | 1300 |
+| 8/11/08 | 910 | Story Crowtes | LI | T-Special | 1748 |
+| 8/11/08 | 1026 | Gloria Green Alaham | PBSD | Drug farm | 1430 |
+| 8/11/08 | 1046 | Susan Wilkoff | PBSD | Drug farm | 1644 |
+| 8/11/08 | 1130 | Thomas Vizing | PBSD | Drug farm | 1748 |
+| 8/11/08 | 1156 | Mirande Ostrig | PBSD | Compund | 1430 |
+| 8/11/08 | 1210 | Arveld Scandini | UI | T-Special (PI) | 1840 |
+| 8/11/08 | 1211 | Carlik Viru | UI | medical (PI) | 1241 |
+| 8/11/08 | 1255 | Dick Linde | PBSD | Drug farm | 1430 |
+| 8/11/08 | 1256 | Robert Goldberg | LI | Intake + D | 1644 |
+| 8/11/08 | 1256 | Valave Valery | PBSD | F-dorm | 1:24 |
+| 8/11/08 | 1257 | Kueber #2158 | PBSD | G/H | 1:25 |
+| 8/11/08 | 1330 | Publo C-anzalez (DAF) | PBSD | Drug farm | 1:15 |
+| 8/11/08 | 1415 | Sarah Feller | PBSD | Drug farm | 1550 |
+| 8/11/08 | 1430 | David Smith (PD) | LI | ICB-Dorm | 1652 |
+| 8-11-08 | 1732 | Perez Angel (bible study) | C-1 | Drug Farm | 1632 |
+| 8-11-08 | 1750 | Lawlor Thomas (bible study) | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1940 |
+| 8-11-08 | 1759 | Caules, Story (PD) | L-1 | T-Special to see Gostein Jeffrey | 1940 |
+| 8-11-08 | 1825 | Goldberger, Jack | L-2 | T-Special to see Gostein Jeffrey | 2014 |
+| 8-11-08 | 1850 | Smith Dane (none) | L-2 | T-Special to see Gostein Jeffrey | |
+
+
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|--------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|----------|
+| 08/12/08 | 1325 | Rev. Bannister- Chaplain | PBSO | Various dorms. | 1520 |
+| 08/12/08 | 1412 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1055 |
+| 08/12/08 | 1515 | Nicole Buddle- [REDACTED] DATA | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | ? |
+| 08/12/08 | 1524 | Jack Goldberger- Attorney | L-5 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | ? |
+| 8-12-08 | 1755 | Cowles Story | L-5 | T-Special to see hmake Epstein | 1600 |
+| 8-12-08 | 1810 | Bernstein Andrew | V-12 | "credit councel" C-dorm | 1922 |
+| 8-12-08 | 1900 | Cabriel Manthey | C-2 | RA & RB- | 1940 |
+| 8-12-08 | 1900 | Lamy Augustine | PBSO | "C-dorm" | 2000 |
+| 8-12-08 | 1900 | Paules Eleanor | PBSO | "C-dorm" | 2000 |
+| 8-12-08 | 1900 | Paules Frank | PBSO | "C-dorm" | 2000 |
+| 8-12-08 | 1900 | Lawse Thomas | PBSO | "C-dorm" | 2000 |
+| 8-12-08 | 1900 | Wetford Robert | C-1 | "C-dorm" / S-area | 2005 |
+| | | | | Church Services | 2000 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+E.S.P.
+Entry Session
+Partnership
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|-----------------|
+| 8-12-08 | 6:50 | Mrs E. Greene | PBSO | Trinity, Q-Building. | 1425 |
+| 8-12-08 | 7:20 | Mr. West | PBSO | SAAP | 1425 |
+| 8-12-08 | 7:20 | Mr. Gray Zibson | PBSO | SAAP | 1425 |
+| 8-12-08 | 7:39 | Susan Wilkoff | PBSO | DAF | 0940 |
+| 8-12-08 | 7:46 | Weissinger | PBSO | DAF | 1938 |
+| 8-12-08 | 7:39 | Chevelle Hytower | PBSO | SAAP | 1406 |
+| 8-12-08 | 7:20 | Brostein | PBSO | DAF | 1137 |
+| 8-12-08 | 7:45 | Ms. Engleman | PBSO | SAAP | 7 |
+| 8-12-08 | 0:30 | Q. Pikney | PBSO | D-Building. | |
+| 08/12/08 | 0800 | Timothy Neff- PBCSB | PBSO | School Classroom. | 1120 |
+| 08/12/08 | 0804 | Jay Badger- PBCSB | PBSO | School Classroom. | 1018 |
+| 08/12/08 | 0833 | Ms. Futch- Section Manager | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1725 - 1366 (B) |
+| 08/12/08 | 0833 | Ms. Lindsay- Secretary | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1127 |
+| 08/12/08 | 0844 | Adam Langino- Public Defender | PBSO | SB-Dorm to see inmates. | 1243 |
+| 08/12/08 | 0853 | Story Crowles- Paralegal | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special) | 1008 |
+| 08/12/08 | 0909 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1046 |
+| 08/12/08 | 0940 | Jerome Burdi- Sun Sentinel | V-13 | Drug Farm area. | 1725 |
+| 08/12/08 | 0940 | Valerie Rolle- DAF | V-12 | Drug Farm area. | 1119 |
+| 08/12/08 | 1010 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1119 |
+| 08/12/08 | 1020 | Melvin Jensen- State of Fl Investigator | V-11 | Various dorms to see inmates. | 1882 |
+| 08/12/08 | 1206 | Story Crowles- Paralegal | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1210 |
+| 08/12/08 | 1254 | Caitlin Bronstein- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1318 |
+| 08/12/08 | 1310 | Brandon Pickens- Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates. | 1625 |
+| 08/12/08 | 1320 | [REDACTED] Varju- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1417 |
+| 08/12/08 | 1321 | Bernard Willis- Fern House | V12 | I/M: Andre Finlev (T-Special) | 1620 |
+| 08/12/08 | 1326 | Chanles p... | | | |
+
+
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 8-12-08 | 1900 | Watford Robert | C-1 | Church Services | |
+| 8-13-08 | 030 | Queens Pinney (TRINITY) | PBSO | KITCHEN | |
+| 8-13-08 | 0600 | EREUN GREEN (TRINITY) | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1043 |
+| 8-13-08 | 0705 | TIMOTHY JUSTIN (SAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1400 |
+| 8-13-08 | 0730 | ARTHUR TRUY (SAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1700 |
+| 8-13-08 | 0730 | SUSAN WICKOFF (SAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1621 |
+| 8-13-08 | 0734 | CATLIN BRONSTEIN (SAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1715 |
+| 8-13-08 | 0750 | PATRICIA ELDERMAN | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1635 |
+| 8-13-08 | 0837 | STORY COWLES (PAKA-LEGAL | PBSO | DRUG FARM | |
+| 8-13-08 | 0857 | JEANETTE CROWDER (PROBATION) | L-1 | TORTURAL (F)M: ERTEMAS | 1621 |
+| 8-13-08 | 0705 | BETZI CEDENO (SNAWON) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1342 |
+| 8-13-08 | 0708 | ELTA EMILCAR (TRINITY) | PBSO | VARIOUS | 1213 |
+| 8-13-08 | 0821 | MICHAEL WEST (SAAP) | PBSO | Q-BLDG | 1145 |
+| 8-13-08 | 0823 | GARY GIBSON (SAAP) | PBSO | T-DORM | 1736 |
+| 8-13-08 | 0947 | JERRY GRAVES (SAAP) | PBSO | T-DORM | 1600 |
+| 8-13-08 | 0950 | CHEVELLE HYTONER (SAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1600 |
+| 8-13-08 | 1029 | JOHN HABICHT (TRINITY) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1130 |
+| 8-13-08 | 1215 | M.E. IVORY (ONEYARD SERVICES) | PBSO | Q-BLDG | 1535 |
+| 8-13-08 | 1316 | NANCY VALENCIA (SAAP) | PBSO | VARIOUS F/MS / VARIOUS AREAS | 123 |
+| 8-13-08 | 1319 | JOSEPH VARSU (SAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1429 |
+| 8-13-08 | 129 | PATRICIA NEWBY (TRINITY) | PBSO | Q-BLDG | 1621 |
+| 8-13-08 | 1322 | PABLO GONZALEZ (DAF) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1910 |
+| 8-13-08 | 1413 | JESUKA WALLY (DAF) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1541 |
+| 8-13-08 | 1437 | RAYMON NACANS (AITY) | CI | SB-DORM | 1700 |
+| 8-13-08 | 1439 | WILLIAM PAUL (P.D.) | PBSO | VARIOUS | 1506 |
+| 8-13-08 | 1441 | LEONARDO TARRIGNA (P.D.) | DAF | | |
+
+
+
+Central Control
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/13/08 | 1539 | SCOTT BERRY (ATTY) | C1 | M-DORM | 1613 |
+| 8/13/08 | 1539 | BRIAN BALAGUERA (ATTY) | C2 | M-DORM | 1613 |
+| 8/13/08 | 1605 | SISTRA BARANTINE | A350 | M-DORM | 1613 |
+| 8/13/08 | 1745 | MR KATI (TEACHER) | V1 | J/K | 1525 |
+| 8/13/08 | 1900 | MR LOWLES DARA LEWIS | C1 | T-MBT IM EBSTEIN | 1535 |
+| 8/13/08 | 1905 | MR GOUDBERT ATTM | BC2 | T-MBT IM EBSTEIN | 2042 |
+| 8/13/08 | 1925 | MR TIMAS | C1 | CHURCH-SARAMIN | 1800 |
+| 8/13/08 | 1926 | MS GARCIA | C2 | CHURCH SETTLING | 2004 |
+| 8/13/08 | 1825 | MS SETKARLES | C3 | CHURCH SETTLING | 2004 |
+| 8/13/08 | 1945 | MR CURTIS ATT | V2 | CHURCH SETTLING | 2004 |
+| 8/13/08 | 1945 | MR KLIORE ATT | V3 | T-MBT IM | 2040 |
+| 8/13/08 | 1900 | MS COHN ATT | V4 | T-MBT IM | 2026 |
+| 8/13/08 | 1910 | MS GUARDZ ATT | V5 | C-DORM | 2006 |
+| 8/13/08 | 1900 | MS ARTHUR ATT | V11 | C-DORM | 2006 |
+| 8/13/08 | 1950 | MS ABRAHAMMET ATT | V12 | C-DORM | 2006 |
+| 8/13/08 | 2020 | MR LEASON ATTM | L2 | C-DORM | 2105 |
+| 8/14/08 | 0150 | EYELYN WILFORD / TRINITY | PB50 | T-37 11/17 JOHNSON, STEPHEN | 2047 |
+| 8/14/08 | 0530 | JOHN HABICHT / TRINITY | PB50 | KITCHEN | 0800 |
+| 8/14/08 | 0632 | ELIZABETH GREEN / TRINITY | PB50 | KITCHEN | 1400 |
+| 8/14/08 | 0720 | PATRICIA EDELMAN / SAAP | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1441 |
+| 8/14/08 | 0726 | ARTHUR TROY / SAAP | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 2500 |
+| 8/14/08 | 0730 | GARY GIBSON / SAAP | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 16200 |
+| 8/14/08 | 0730 | TERRY OREAVES / SAAP | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1441 |
+| 8/14/08 | 0730 | MICHAEL WEST / SAAP | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1525 |
+| 8/14/08 | 0750 | SUSAN LOLKOFF | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1441 |
+| 8/14/08 | 0750 | STACI ANDREWS | PB50 | DRUG FARM | |
+
+http://www.esp.com
+
+ESP
+EXTRA SERVICE
+PALM BEACH
+
+CASE# 9100-000000-000000-KAM DOCUMENT 540-3 ENTERED ON FLSD DECLATED 05/07/2010 Page 7 of 82
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+Central Control
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/14/08 | 900 | Linda Hawthorne | V1 | Drug Farm | 1115 |
+| 8/14/08 | 900 | Evelyn Bremer | V2 | Drug Farm | 1115 |
+| 8/14/08 | 900 | Marie Tricy | PBSO | R F | 1115 |
+| 8/14/08 | 900 | Jennie Buron | V3 | Drug | 1106 |
+| 8/14/08 | 900 | Scott Fisher | V4 | Drug [REDACTED] W/ soft (initials 10/5) | |
+| 8/14/08 | 930 | Todd Doyer | V5 | A-Docin [REDACTED] contains PD | 950 |
+| 8/14/08 | 105 | Michael Ostriz | PBSO | O-Building | 1958 |
+| 8/14/08 | 106 | Gerenice Hall (PD) | L- | A,M | 1700 |
+| 8/14/08 | 121 | July Badger | PBSO | Class-route | 1310 |
+| 8-14-08 | 1253 | Conrad Saddler | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1490 |
+| 8-14-08 | 1310 | Marianne Rantala | PBSO | Louis Simon IB-18 | 1309 |
+| 8/14/08 | 1357 | Marie Greene | L-1 | Baker malichia - IB-18 | 1328 |
+| 8/14/08 | 1404 | Classica Cockey | PBSO | SB EB-DOCINS | 145 |
+| 8/14/08 | 1509 | Story Growles | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1700 |
+| 8/14/08 | 1540 | Willie Farrell | L-1 | T-Special | 1924 |
+| 8-14-07 | 1755 | Mr. Bearstein | PBSO | F,B,SB Puz DOF | 1700 |
+| 8-14-07 | 1955 | Mr. Edwitt (Speakers) | V1 | T-Docin Connector | 1925 |
+| 8-14-07 | 1955 | Mr. Edwitt (Speakers) | V2 | BA-DORM | 2010 |
+| 8-14-07 | 1955 | Mr. Edwitt (Speakers) | V3 | SA-DORM | 2010 |
+| 8-15-08 | 0150 | Evelyn Wilson (Trimity) | V1 | T-DORM | 2105 |
+| 8-15-08 | 0626 | Elizabeth Green | PBSO | Kitchen | 1930 |
+| 8-15-08 | 0716 | Patricia Edelman | PBSO | Kitchen | 1430 |
+| 8-15-08 | 0729 | Michael West | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1600 |
+| 8-15-08 | 0738 | Carlin Branstein | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1533 |
+| 8-15-08 | 0736 | Norma Trone | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1700 |
+
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|----------|
+| 8-15-08 | 1943 | Jessica Welfry | PSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 8-15-08 | 1947 | Clindsey Canorrico | V1 | CB Dorm | 1709 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1570 | Jack Goldberger | L3 | T-Special (Jupiter) | 1516 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1800 | Cawles, Store | L-3 | T-Special to see Epstein Jeffrey | 1536 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1943 | Helmut Goeithit-2 | V-1 | " Drug Farm " | 1937 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1943 | Rashad Dansby | V-2 | " Alumni " | 2109 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1943 | Towany Arocho | V-3 | " Alumni " | 2109 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1943 | Philipp Phillip Stephens | V-4 | " Alumni " | 2109 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1943 | Percz Roberto | V-5 | " Alumni " | 2109 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1943 | White Markus | V-10 | " Alumni " | 2109 |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|----------|
+| 8-15-08 | 740 | Angeliki Wessinger | PBSD | Drug Farm | |
+| 8-15-08 | 742 | Chevelle Hestwec | PBSD | Drug Farm | |
+| 8-15-08 | 747 | Susan W. Thoff | PBSD | Drug Farm | |
+| 8-15-08 | 754 | Martine Kain-Breptiste | PBSD | Drug Farm | 82 |
+| 8-15-08 | 756 | Jay Badger | PBSD | Compound | |
+| 8-15-08 | 807 | Timothy Petty (Tracker) | PBSD | Classrooms | 100 |
+| 8-15-08 | 804 | John Flabrick | PBSD | Classrooms | |
+| 8-15-08 | 907 | Jonathan Cynn | PBSD | C-Building | 100 |
+| 8-15-08 | 907 | Kain Funcinee | PBSD | Tour | 151 |
+| 8-15-08 | 907 | Tracy Ford | PBSD | Tour | 11:44 |
+| 8-15-08 | 907 | Tephanie Whitmore | PBSD | Tour W/ CPL same clo | 11:44 |
+| 8-15-08 | 907 | Khsty McTell | PBSD | Tour | 11:44 |
+| 8-15-08 | 910 | Mice Tracy | PBSD | Tour | 11:44 |
+| 8-15-08 | 917 | Mitchell Ders | PBSD | H-Dorm | 11:44 |
+| 8-15-08 | 959 | Michael McLean | UI | B-Dorm | 10 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1134 | Angelic Sachitzer | UI | Intake | |
+| 8-15-08 | 1300 | Story Growtes | UI | Compound cell sgt. Frank's 1331 | 105 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1304 | Michael McImplex | UI | T-Special / sgt. Frank's 140 | |
+| 8-15-08 | 1318 | Publo Gonzalez | UI | D-Dorm | 140 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1303 | Joseph Cunn | PBSD | Drug Farm | 130 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1305 | Sobanish Heeldkanter | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1600 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1305 | George Taborder | PBSD | Tour | 1620 |
+| 8-15-08 | 231 | Travothy Lustan | PBSD | Tour | 1500 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1344 | Aalan Chmons | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1500 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1349 | Tracor Satel | PBSD | Tour | 170 |
+| 8-15-08 | 1418 | Daniel Martinett | CD | Tour | 1500 |
+
+
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|-------------|
+| 08/16/08 | 0732 | Wally Jessica | PBSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 08/16/08 | 0738 | Christis Finkney | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1130 |
+| 08-16-08 | 8:30 | Weissner Angelika (SAAD) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1022 E 1130 |
+| 08-16-08 | 6:30 | Maussally Christopher (process senior) | PBSO | Intake backing to see inmates Johansen Oarm | 1817 |
+| 08-16-08 | 9:00 | Ostring Millande (trinity) | PBSO | O-building | 8:30 |
+| 08-16-08 | 9:10 | Coules Story (Public Defender) | L-2 | T-special to see Epstein Jeffrey | 1728 |
+| 08-16-08 | 10:12 | Elta Emilcar (trinity) | PBSO | O-building | 1100 |
+| 08-16-08 | 1030 | Timothy Justin (DAF) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1830 |
+| 08-16-08 | 1305 | Pagano Joseph (Attorney) | PBSO | T-special to see Epstein Jeffrey | 1750 |
+| 08-16-08 | 1525 | Prostee Arnold (Attorney) | L-1 | T-special to see Epstein Jeffrey | 1610 |
+| 08-16-08 | 1935 | Richard Rooting | VI | Drug Farm | 1635 |
+| 08/17/08 | 0710 | Edelman | PBSO | Drug farm | 2100 |
+| 08/17/08 | 0739 | Finkney Centers | PBSO | Trinity staff | 1520 |
+| 08/17/08 | 906 | Stephen Atkinster | VI | T-special | 1038 |
+| 08/17/08 | 910 | Micark Ostring | PBSO | O-Building | 755 |
+| 08/17/08 | 925 | Elta Emilcar | PBSO | O-Building | 1080 |
+| 08/17/08 | 1200 | Story Coules | VI | T-special | 1835 |
+| 08/17/08 | 1356 | Jack Goldberger | L-2 | T-special | 1625 |
+| 08/17/08 | 445 | Joseph Pagano | L-3 | T-special | 1516 |
+| 08/17/08 | 1520 | Arnold Prosperi | VI | T-special | 1055 |
+| 08-17-08 | 1805 | Alexander Stephen | V-1 | T-special | 1740 |
+| 08-17-08 | 1904 | Coules Story | L-2 | T-special to see inmate Epstein | 2000 |
+| 08-17-08 | 1950 | Smith James | V-2 | T-special to see inmate Epstein | 2030 |
+| | | | | (-dorm (AA meeting)) | 2100 |
+
+hgshashghas.com
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Parallel Secretary
+
+Page 11 of 61
+
+ESP Entry Secretary
+
+Paral
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/19/08 | 0150 | Elizyn Welford/Trinity | PBSO | Qubec | |
+| 8/19/08 | 0054 | Elizabeth Creen/Trinity | PBSO | Qubec | 12:31 |
+| 8/19/08 | 0712 | Ruth Little (Ssp) | PBSO | Qubec | 1426 |
+| 8/19/08 | 0730 | Csp Cade | PBSO | Qubec | |
+| 8-19-08 | 0825 | John Habicht - Trinity Stass | PBSO | Downtown court | |
+| 8-19-08 | 1046 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q.Bldg. | |
+| 8-19-08 | 1550 | Story Crowels - Paragatezel | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1519 |
+| | | | PBSO | Ilm: BOSEIN, Joffrey (7-spread) | 1830 |
+| | | | | | 1707 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/20/08 | 1800 | MR. PAOGGI | V1 | MR. EDSTEIN - T-mcT. | 1500 |
+| 8/20/09 | 1810 | MR. REEX BANDER | V2 | MR. EDSTEIN - T-mcT. | 1500 |
+| 8/20/08 | 1825 | MS. KIMBLEY PI | V3 | MR. EDSTEIN - T-mcT. | 2045 |
+| 8/20/09 | 1830 | MS. LEGRAM PI | V4 | MR. EDSTEIN - SB | 1528 |
+| 8/10/09 | 1830 | SICTER BARRISTOR | BBSD | MR. EDSTEIN - SB | 1528 |
+| 8/20/08 | 1840 | MR. GUCERKER ATM | BBSD | CHOCK | 1920 |
+| 8/20/08 | 1850 | MR. LUBTUS ATM | BBSD | M-DORM - MC009, Q | 1940 |
+| 8/10/08 | 1850 | MR. STANLEY ATM | BBSD | T-DORM | 1920 |
+| 8/20/08 | 1900 | MS. MARSHAL ATM | BBSD | T-DORM | 2020 |
+| 8/20/09 | 2000 | MR. MORRIS ATM | BBSD | C-DORM | 2020 |
+| 8/21/08 | 0222 | Evelyn Wilford | BBSD | T 1K | 208 |
+| 8/21/08 | 0426 | Gartin Pinkney | BBSD | Trinity STAFF - Quebec | 2058 |
+| 8/21/08 | 0635 | Gartin Pinkney | BBSD | Trinity STAFF - Quebec | 1318 |
+| 8/21/08 | 0736 | Sasan Willett | BBSD | SAAP | 841 |
+| 8/21/08 | 0652 | Edizabeth Green | BBSD | SAAP | 1708 |
+| 8/21/08 | 0720 | John Habicht | BBSD | Trinity STAFF - Quebec | 1750 |
+| 8/21/08 | 0740 | A. Dessiner | BBSD | Trinity STAFF - Quebec | 1438 |
+| 8/21/08 | 0740 | Allen Bubbons | BBSD | SAAP | 1440 |
+| 8/21/08 | 0741 | D. Ettinger | BBSD | Drug Farm | 1600 |
+| 8/21/08 | 0800 | Martine Jean Baptiste | BBSD | Drug Farm | 1600 |
+| 8/21/08 | 0802 | Sarah Kath | BBSD | Public Defender | 1615 |
+| 8/21/08 | 810 | Kay Bridgett | BBSD | SAAP | 840 |
+| 8/21/08 | 815 | Michael Likst | BBSD | Classroom | 1200 |
+| 8/21/08 | 815 | Terry Gracks | BBSD | Drug Farm | 1344 |
+| 8/21/08 | 824 | Sean Holloway | BBSD | Drug Farm | 1600 |
+| 8/21/08 | 815 | Mike Williams | BBSD | Drug Farm | 1600 |
+
+CASE 9-08-cv-80119-KAM Document 540-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2019 Page 13 of 62
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/21/08 | 936 | T. Peterson / Jack (") | PBSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 8/21/08 | 956 | William Paul (PD) | PBSO | T-Dorm | 17:05 |
+| 8/21/08 | 956 | Berbera White (PD) | L | T-Dorm | 11:07 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1006 | Michael Osting | PBSO | G-Building | 11:07 |
+| 8-21-08 | 12:12 | Remitted Bever (Atty) | L-1 | T-Spec (Gestion) | 11:07 |
+| 8-21-08 | 12:12 | Gold Beeze Jack (") | L-2 | " " | 13:00 |
+| 8-21-08 | 12:12 | Wen Bee Martin (") | L-3 | " " | 13:00 |
+| 8-21-08 | 12:14 | Partial Squeeze (Heart Dept) | Y-11 | Medical | 13:00 |
+| 8-21-08 | 12:22 | Tim Michael (Atty) | L-4 | T-Spec (Gestion) | 12:40 |
+| 8-21-08 | 12:22 | Lewi Guy (") | H-5 | T-Spec (") | 13:00 |
+| 8/21/08 | 13:39 | Conrad Saddler | PBSO | F-Dorm | 13:00 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1300 | John Dixon | PBSO | Medical | 13:00 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1300 | Dolce Guys | PBSO | Medical | 13:00 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1300 | Barrand Willis | VI | Medical | 13:00 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1308 | Adam Canerillo | PBSO | T-Dorm | 13:00 |
+| 8/21/08 | 132 | Rabban Berber | V-2 | Compound/ Compact | 13:00 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1331 | Tom Juskey (PD) | PBSO | T-Dorm | 13:00 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1339 | James Barrand (DR) | VI | B-Dorm Intake | 13:00 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1340 | Jessica Quelly | PBSO | Drug Farm | 13:00 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1408 | Martin Weinberg (PD) | | T-Special | 17:00 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1408 | Michael Tien & (PD) | | T-Special | 17:00 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1408 | Guy Greens (PD) | | T-Special | 17:00 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1408 | Jack Goldberg (") | | T-Special | 17:00 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1408 | Bruce Geinhardt (PD) | | T-Special | 15:44 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1430 | Carando Labordy | | T-Special | 15:44 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1430 | Virtual Triangle | | F-Dorm | 15:44 |
+
+Case#: P-007-R00001-KAM Document # 000000-000000 Entered with HSD Docket # 000000-000000 Page 14 of 14 Page No. 82
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/20/08 | 1:30 | Emelyn Wilford/Tenty | PBSO | Quebee | |
+| 8/20/18 | 04:00 | Curtis Pinkney/Tenty | PBSO | Quebee | |
+| 8/20/08 | 6:44 | Als Branstem/Drug Farm | PBSO | Quebee | |
+| 8/20/08 | 7:15 | Mr. Tray / Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1242 |
+| 8/20/08 | 7:30 | Mr. Gibson/Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1750 |
+| 8/20/08 | 7:32 | Mr. West / Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1645 |
+| 8/20/08 | 7:41 | Mr. Wessinger/Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1600 |
+| 8/20/08 | 7:50 | Mr. Hutton/ | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1600 |
+| 8/20/08 | 6:30 | Erzebeth Green | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1905 |
+| 8/20/08 | 7:51 | Mr. Hubert/Tenty | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1355 |
+| 8/20/08 | 08:15 | PATRICIA EDELMAN/SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1336 |
+| 8/20/08 | 09:09 | EUTA EMILCAR (TRINITY) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1608 |
+| 8/20/08 | 09:33 | KENNETH LIXHOLD (SAAP) | PBSO | Q-BUDG | 1735 |
+| 8/20/08 | 11:47 | PETER ZAMPION (BOYNTON P.D) | L1 | BOOKING | 1014 |
+| 8/20/08 | 11:47 | DANIEL DUGGER (BOYNTON P.D) | L2 | BOOKING | 123 |
+| 8/20/08 | 12:03 | STORY COWLES (PAROLEGAL) | L3 | BOOKING | 1213 |
+| 8/20/08 | 12:27 | CONRAD SADOLER (PRO-TRIAL) | PBSO | T-SPECIAL (F/M: EBSTEIN, S) | 1645 |
+| 8/20/08 | 12:53 | JOSEPH VARJU (SAAP) | PBSO | VARIOUS | 123 |
+| 8/20/08 | 13:22 | De. Aleke Mackay | V-3 | DRUG FARM | 1623 |
+| 8/20/08 | 13:55 | Mr. Leray (both?) | PBSO | B-Dorm F/M Tomery Mareen | 1452 |
+| 8/20/08 | 14:06 | JESSICA WALLY (DAF) | PBSO | F & R-Dorm | 1600 |
+| 8/20/08 | 14:07 | SCOTT PENNEY (P.D.) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1700 |
+| 8/20/08 | 14:10 | ROBERT HUMES (DAF) | PBSO | VARIOUS | 1700 |
+| 8/20/08 | 14:27 | NANCY VALENCIA (SAAP) | PBSO | VARIOUS DRUG FARM | 1457 |
+| 8/20/08 | 14:37 | LEA KRAUSS (ATTY) | PBSO | J-DORM | 1655 |
+| 8/20/08 | 14:57 | Mr. Leray (both?) | L-1 | RB-DORM | 1655 |
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/21/08 | 1433 | NEGACIN YUNG (PD) | PBSO | B | 1710 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1555 | JACK GOLDBERG | L4 | T-SPECIAL | 1710 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1620 | MR. GOLDBERG | PBSO | T-DETAIL - M-DORM | 1710 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1726 | MR. LEONS ATTY | L2 | T-MAT - EASTBRN | 1712 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1740 | MR. TETAH ATTY | L3 | T-MAT - COSTEN | 1745 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1800 | MR. COWLES | L4 | T-MAT - COSTEN | 1845 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1915 | MR. BEAUSTEW | V1 | T-MAT - COSTEN | 2030 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1859 | MR. GUEST NATAS | V2 | T-DORM (DOS MAT) | 1931 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1905 | MR. ABERL NATAS | V3 | SA-DORM | 2005 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1936 | MR. LESCATON ATTY | L3 | SA-DORM | 2005 |
+| 8/21/08 | 1945 | MR. DEAKINS ATT | V11 | M-DORM - DUMMINGER, S. | 2015 |
+| 8/22/08 | 0135 | Cristy Pinkney | PBSO | T-DORM. | 2105 |
+| 8/22/08 | 655 | Cartler Brooker | PBSO | Trinity Staff | 1133 |
+| 8/22/08 | 056 | ET STAFF from Swanson | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1119 |
+| 8/22/08 | 0703 | Sean Hopkins (Def. Comp) | PBSO | Swanson | 1108 |
+| 8/22/08 | 0750 | SUSAN Wilcox | PBSO | Deferred Comp. | 0911 |
+| 8/22/08 | 0751 | D. Weissinger | PBSO | SAAP | 1810 |
+| 8/22/08 | 0752 | Mr. ETTINGER | PBSO | SAAP | 2050 |
+| 8/22/08 | 0753 | Chevelle Hylowe | PBSO | SAAP | 1052 |
+| 08/22/08 | 0800 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | SAAP. | 2050 |
+| 08/22/08 | 0835 | Dante Medina-Public Defender | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1532 |
+| 08/22/08 | 0857 | Cristy Baker- Public Defender | PBSO | Various Dorms to see inmates. | 1028 |
+| 08/22/08 | 0908 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Various Dorms to see inmates. | 1047 |
+| 08/22/08 | 0913 | Jaianne Seaborne- Public Defender | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1041 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1005 | Jessie Boylan - Pro Fitness | PBSO | Various Dorms to see inmates. | 1045 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1005 | Jessie Boylan - Pro Fitness | V-11 | Locker room | |
+
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|---------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|----------|
+| 08/22/08 | 1026 | Mamie Kendal [REDACTED] - Attorney | L-5 | I/M: Judkins, Joshua (A-Dorm). | 1050 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1055 | Michael West- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1413 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1159 | Phillip Heller- Psyc Dr | V-2 | I/M: Spencer, [REDACTED] (SB18). | 1324 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1159 | Story Crowles- Paralegal | L-5 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1401 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1203 | Alfred [REDACTED] - Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates. | |
+| 08/22/08 | 1203 | Patricia Edelman- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | |
+| 08/22/08 | 1249 | Tom Hatcher- Communication | PBSO | Fac. Mgmt Office. | |
+| 08/22/08 | 1250 | [REDACTED] Varju- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | |
+| 08/22/08 | 1302 | Jack Goldberger- Attorney | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Spec). | 1420 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1302 | Bruce Reinhart- Attorney | L-2 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Spec). | 1422 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1303 | Kenneth Huxhold- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1432 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1306 | D/S Mcharrey - Deputy | PBSO | Various Dorms to see inmates. | 1413 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1410 | Dustin Moore- WPB PD Detective | V-2 | I/M: [REDACTED], [REDACTED] (B-Dorm). | 1318 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1410 | Raymond [REDACTED] - WPB PD Detective | V-5 | I/M: [REDACTED], [REDACTED] (B-Dorm). | 1448 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1410 | Story Crowles- Paralegal | L-5 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1448 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1412 | Rev. Bannister- Chaplain | PBSO | On the compound. | 1605 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1412 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1539 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1412 | Sarah Korn- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1700 |
+| 08/22/08 | 1538 | Scott C. Penney- Public Defender | PBSO | Various Dorms to see inmates. | 1700 |
+| 8-22-08 | 200 | Dansey Rashad (Alumni) | V-5 | Drug Farm | 1640 |
+| 8-22-08 | 200 | Goellnitz Nelmut (Alumni) | V-2 | Drug Farm | 211 |
+| 8-22-08 | 200 | Cripps Matshew (Alumni) | V-4 | Drug Farm | 211 |
+| 8-22-08 | 200 | Larkin Kein (Alumni) | V-3 | Drug Farm | 211 |
+| 8-22-08 | 200 | Wells Antonio (Alumni) | V-11 | Drug Farm | 211 |
+| 8-22-08 | 200 | Florini Thomas (Alumni) | V-12 | Drug Farm | 216 |
+
+ESP
+Extra Services
+Paralegal
+
+https://esp.org
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|----------|
+| 08/23 | 0130 | Curtis Pinkney | PBSO | Trunk Step | 1043 |
+| 08/23 | 0728 | Robert Humes | PBSO | SAAP | 1145 |
+| 08/23 | 0735 | Catherine Bronstein | PBSO | SAAP | 115 |
+| 08/23 | 0745 | Justin Tum | PBSO | SAAP | 121 |
+| 08/23-08 | 0845 | Wilcoff Susan | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1510 |
+| 08/23-08 | 0855 | Leary Linda (United Deliverance) | PBSO | L/M-dorms | 1818 |
+| 08/23-08 | 0905 | Coules Stocy (Public Def.) | PBSO | T-special to see inmate Epstein | 0935 |
+| 08/23-08 | 0902 | Desting Michaele (Trinity) | PBSO | Q-building | 1359 |
+| 08/23-08 | 10:04 | Elta Miller (Trinity) | PBSO | Q-building | 1730 |
+| 08/23-08 | 1240 | Delaware Brian (Public Defender) | PBSO | B-dorm, T-dorm, D-dorm | 1857 |
+| 08/23-08 | 1335 | Siski Bamister (clergy) | PBSO | Compound | 140 |
+| 08/23-08 | 1418 | Yang Maegan (public def.) | PBSO | Adorn Jack Alexander | 1545 |
+| 08/23-08 | 1815 | Coules Stocy (public defender) | PBSO | T-special to see inmate Epstein | 1429 |
+| 08/23-08 | 2000 | Robert Shanley (NA) | N-4 | Drug Farm | 1404 |
+| | | | | | 2105 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|----------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|----------|
+| 8-26-08 | 1750 | Goldberger Jack (AA) | L-1 | T-special to see inmate Epstein | 2009 |
+| 8-26-08 | 1750 | Critton Robert (AA) | L-3 | T-special to see inmate Epstein | 2009 |
+| 8-26-08 | 1800 | Annette Allen (Teacher) | V-11 | God Drug Farm | 2009 |
+| 8-26-08 | 1800 | Marvin Bouc (Teacher) | V-12 | God Drug Farm | 1958 |
+| 8-26-08 | 1800 | Andrew Bernstein (Credit Career) | V-14 | Credit Career | 1958 |
+| 8-26-08 | 1900 | Manthey Cabriel (Clergy) | C-1 | R-ared | 1950 |
+| 8-26-08 | 1900 | Laurel Thomas (Clergy) | PBSD | C-dam | 2018 |
+| 8-26-08 | 1900 | Abner Lavie (Clergy) | C-2 | Clergy - church services | 1913 |
+| 8-26-08 | 1950 | Lais Nelson (AA) | V-1 | T-dam meeting | 1958 |
+| | | | | | 2105 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+Case 9-08-cv-80119-KAM Document 540-3 Entered on PLSD Docket 05/07/2019 Page 19 of 62
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|---------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/26/08 | 113 | EVELYN WILFORD TRINITY | PB50 | HITCHEN | 1023 |
+| 8/26/08 | 623 | ELIZABETH GREEN TRINITY | PB50 | HITCHEN | 1420 |
+| 8/26/08 | 057 | TIM JUSTIN SAAP | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1600 |
+| 8/26/08 | 710 | ARTHUR TROY SAAP | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1600 |
+| 8/26/08 | 731 | MS BRONSTIEN SAAP | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1600 |
+| 8/26/08 | 734 | MS WESSELWER STAP | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1600 |
+| 8/26/08 | 734 | SARY SIBSON SAAP | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1600 |
+| 8/26/08 | 746 | MR WEST SAAP | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1600 |
+| 8/26/08 | 744 | JOHN HARICHIT TRINITY | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1600 |
+| 8/26/08 | 754 | PATRICIA EDELMAN SAAP | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1600 |
+| 8/26/08 | 088 | PATRICK NELSON (MAX DOVI) | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1448 |
+| 8/26/08 | 0905 | EUTA EMILCAR (TRINITY) | PB50 | CLASSROOM | 1100 |
+| 8/26/08 | 101 | PATRICIA NEWBY (TRINITY) | PB50 | G-BLDG | 0911 |
+| 8/26/08 | 1047 | GREG ROSS (ATTY) | PB50 | G-BLDG | 1742 |
+| 8/26/08 | 1155 | ROBERT HYMES (DAF) | L-7 | A-DORM | 1904 |
+| 8/26/08 | 1159 | SARAH KORN (DAF) | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1138 |
+| 8/26/08 | 1159 | JEWINA WALLY (DAF) | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1556 |
+| 8/26/08 | 1159 | STORY COWLES (PARA-CEGAL) | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1625 |
+| 8/26/08 | 1236 | JOSEPH MARYLINA (P.D.) | L-1 | T-SPECIAL CF/M: EPSTEIN, JS | 1625 |
+| 8/26/08 | 125 | NICOLE BYDDIE - DINZ | PB50 | VARIOUS | 1306 |
+| 8/26/08 | 1300 | JONETH VAROU (JAAP) | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1203 |
+| 8/26/08 | 1308 | PABLO GONZALEZ (DAF) | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1502 |
+| 8/26/08 | 1319 | ANDREA DESORETZ (ATTY) | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1626 |
+| 8/26/08 | 13:33 | Robert Stencil | L-1 | VARIOUS | 1600 |
+| 8/26/08 | 1446 | EDWIN SILVA (B10-JPSC) | PB50/II | Risk mgmt. | 1600 |
+| 8/26/08 | 1548 | STORY COWLES (PARA-CEGAL) | V-1 | T-DORM | 1352 |
+
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/27/08 | 1130 | PATRICIA NEWBY (TRINITY) | PBSO | B-BLDG | |
+| 8/27/08 | 1211 | STORY COWLES (PARA-LEGAL) | L1 | F-SPECIAL (F/M: ERIC N, J) | 8:57 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1225 | DON CARPER (ATTY) | L2 | F-SPECIAL (F/M: ERIC N, J) | 1306 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1240 | PABLO GONZALEZ (DAF) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1306 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1300 | ADAM LANGINO (P.P.) | PBSO | VARIOUS | 1505 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1304 | JOSEPH VARJU (JAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1427 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1340 | KENNETH NIXHOLD (JAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | |
+| 8/27/08 | 1340 | NANCY VALENCIA (JAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 16.5 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1422 | LLOYD JMITH (VULCAN) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1457 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1426 | ROBERT HUMEJ (DAF) | V1 | VARIOUS | 1456 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1429 | JESSICA WAILY (DAF) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1509 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1440 | SEAN HOFKINS (HARTFORD) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 16.2 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1448 | JANET ESTUPINAN (ARMOR) | PBSO | LINE UP ROOM | 1657 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1501 | PLAN GONZALEZ (LAKE WATTUP) | V2 | MEDICAL | 1550 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1521 | JOSEPH PAGANO (PARA-LEGAL) | V3 | BOOKING | 1545 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1444 | MRS COGSWELL ATTY | L1 | F-SPECIAL (F/M: ERIC N, J) | 1523 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1745 | MR - COWLES ATTY | L2 | SA - DETENTION FAR LAMINE, LEE | 1801 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1800 | MR KAMPS (COWLES) | L2 | T-MET - 1/m EDSTEIN | 1655 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1800 | MR AMERICAN (TERRANA) | V11 | DANA KAMPS | 1907 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1815 | SUITE BARRISTOR (CULTER) | PBSO | DANA KAMPS | 1840 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1850 | MR ALEX ZANOVSKI (CULTER) | PBSO | C-DOOM | 1840 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1850 | MR SLOTT (CULTER) | L2 | CULTER SERVICES | 1840 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1850 | MR ALEX ZANOVSKI (PSD) | V1 | CULTER SERVICES | 1950 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1900 | MR CLOSLEMAN (ATTY) | L3 | T-MET. | 1950 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1901 | MR FOLLEY (MRS DET) | PBSO | 1/m ALEX ZANOVSKI SA | 21200 |
+| 8/27/08 | 1933 | MR SUMMERS INC. | PBSO | 1/m L-MR SUMMERS ING | 1934 |
+
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/NMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/27/06 | 1930 | MR. KUCHIWSKY (ATTY) | L-4 | SA ANDRE, J/TB VS, F(SB) | 1840 |
+| 8/27/08 | 2000 | MR. ANTONO NA | V-11 | DON FARM | 2108 |
+| 8/27/09 | 2000 | MR. BENES NA | V-12 | DON FARM | 2108 |
+| 8/28/08 | 0130 | Evelyn Wilford | PBSO | Trinity STAR - Quebec | 2125 |
+| 8/28/08 | 0435 | Quetto Pinken | PBSO | Trinity Staff - Quebec | 1310 |
+| 8/28/08 | 06105 | Elizabeth Green | PBSO | Trinity Staff - Quebec | 850 |
+| 8/28/08 | 0710 | Mr. Ethigen | PBSO | Trinity Staff - Quebec | 1322 |
+| 8/28/08 | 0725 | Arthur Tray | PBSO | SAAP SAAP | |
+| 8/29/08 | 0790 | Graves | PBSO | | |
+| 8/29/07 | 800 | CHARLE HYTCHEN | | | 1780 |
+| 8/28/08 | 807 | SUSAN WILKOTT | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1550 |
+| 8/28/08 | 811 | Jay Backyet | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 2010 |
+| 8/28/08 | 811 | Martine Jacob - Raptist | VI | CLASS NOOMS | 1610 |
+| 8/28/08 | 829 | SUSAN ROSN | PBSO | RB KIA | 1126 |
+| 8/28/08 | 851 | TIMOTHY VADEN | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 9.30 |
+| 8/28/08 | 900 | GER BRIMMER | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1700 |
+| 8/29/08 | 908 | PATRICKY MACBY | VI | DRUG FARM | 1.74 |
+| 8/28/08 | 1008 | MIRCARE OSHIN | PBSO | R-BUILDING | 1107 |
+| 8/28/08 | 1057 | JAMELA CLARK (ECO) | VB | R-BUILDING | 1728 |
+| 8-28-08 | 12:07 | STEPHEN T. RADGNITZ (INVESTIGATED) | V-11 | LAUNDRY | 1976 |
+| 8-28-08 | 12:14 | GOLDBROSSE, JACK (ATTY) | L-1 | INTAKE (CASTRO, A. / WILD, K. ) | 12:18 |
+| 8/28/08 | 1249 | PABLO GONZALEZ | PBSO | T-SPEC. (EMSTEIN) | 1255 |
+| 8/28/08 | 1354 | OSEPH PESSALO | VI | DRUG FARM | 1255 |
+| 8/28/08 | 1353 | J-CARRERE CRADLEY | PBSO | INTAKE (J/M Gamble) | 1558 |
+| 8/28/08 | 1350 | OSEPH LENO | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1348 |
+| 8/28/08 | 1340 | ACHARA REMAN (DR) | VII | DRUG FARM | |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+**Central Control**
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|---------------------|-----------------------------------|----------|
+| 8/30/08 | 0130 | Curtis Pinkney | PB50 | Trinity Staff - Quebec | 10:30 |
+| 8/30/08 | 0136 | Walley Jessicin | PB50 | Drug farm | 10:30 |
+| 8/30/08 | 908 | Milliciade O'String | PB50 | Q-Building | 11:20 |
+| 8/30/08 | 920 | Stephen Alexander | PB50 | T-Special | 11:45 |
+| 8/30/08 | 936 | Ella Emilicen | PB50 | Q-Building | 12:00 |
+| 8-30-08 | 12108 | Cowles Story A. | PB50 L-1 | T-Special Angler (Inmate Epstein) | 11:00 |
+| 8/30/08 | 1355 | Joseph Paycino | L-2 | T-Special | 11:15 |
+| 8/30/08 | 1520 | Montonica Holme | L-1 | C-Dorm | 12:22 |
+| 8/30-08 | 1810 | Prosper Arnold (Attorney) | L-1 | T-Special to see inmate Epstein | 12:52 |
+| 8-30-08 | 1855 | Carles Story | L-2 | T-Special to see inmate Epstein | 12:01 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|----------|
+| 08/31/08 | 0145 | Evelyn Wilford | PBSO | Trinity Staff - Quebec | 947 |
+| 08/31/08 | 0703 | Troy, Arthur | PBSO | Drug farm | |
+| 8/31/08 | 903 | Bred Wunbery | LI | A-Dorm | 1100 |
+| 8/31/08 | 912 | Mirank Ostrig | PBSO | Q-Building | 956 |
+| 8/31/08 | 1008 | Stephen Alexander | VI | I-Special | 190 |
+| 8/31/08 | 1016 | Effer Emilien | PBSO | Q-Building | 1288 |
+| 8/31/08 | DII | Story Crackers | LI | I-Special | 1745 |
+| 8-31-08 | 1745 | Goules Stell | L-I | I-Special to see inmate Epstein | 1445 |
+| 8-31-08 | 1810 | Prosperi Annold | L-I | I-Special to see inmate Epstein | 202 |
+| 8-31-08 | 1951 | JOHNNIE PERKINS | V-I | I-Special to see inmate Epstein | 2005 |
+| | | | | I-Dorm (A.A.) | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+33
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|----------|
+| 09-01-08 | 0140 | Evelyn Wilford | PBSO | Trinity Staff - Quebee | 1012 |
+| 09-01-08 | 0128 | Arthur Tong | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1118 |
+| 9-01-08 | 0745 | Michael Wright | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1123 |
+| 09-01-08 | 0916 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1710 |
+| 09-01-08 | 0934 | Stephen Alexander- Doctor | V-12 | I/M: Esptein, Jeffrey (T-Spec). | 1117 |
+| 09-01-08 | 1230 | Story Crowles- Paralegal | L-1 | I/M: Esptein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | |
+| 09-01-08 | 1232 | Michael West- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1343 |
+| 09-01-08 | 1329 | Jack Goldberger- Attorney | L-4 | I/M: Esptein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1459 |
+| 09-01-08 | 1745 | Angel Perez (Bidestudy) | PBSO | Drug Farm - meeting | 1940 |
+| 9-1-08 | 1810 | Mickenney, Kara (Bidestudy) | L-1 | Drug Farm - meeting | 1940 |
+| 9-1-08 | 1825 | Cadles, Story (Public Def.) | L-1 | T-drug to see inmate Epstein | 2016 |
+| | | Osting, Mirlande | PBSO | Q Building | 1830 |
+| 9-1-08 | 1900 | Sweedy, Sally (AA) | V-1 | Drug Farm - meeting | 1940 2/4 |
+| 9-1-08 | 1950 | Lilkoit John | V-2 | T-Dorm | 2010 |
+| 9-1-08 | 1950 | Damato Brian | V-3 | Drug Farm | 2010 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|----------|
+| 09-02-08 | 1236 | Jack Goldberger- Attorney | L-2 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1411 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1236 | Donald Silver- Attorney | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1352 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1257 | Varju- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area | 1418 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1348 | Gold Coast Sew & Vacc | PBSO | Drug Farm area via gate #4. | 1444 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1355 | Timothy Justin- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1040 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1414 | Sarah Korn- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area | 1050 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1414 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1050 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1440 | Ms. John- Pre-Trial Services | PBSO | On the compound to various dorms. | 1459 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1501 | Kenneth Huxhold- SAAP | PBSO | En route to B-Dorm. | 1555 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1533 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1829 |
+| 9-2-08 | 1550 | Wade Lery | PBSO | Dorm inmate Tomes | 1612 |
+| 9-2-08 | 1813 | Donald P. Prosperi- Attorney | L-2 | T-Special Epstein, Jeffrey | 1930 |
+| 9-2-08 | 1816 | Andrew M. Bernstein (Instructor) | VII | C-Dorm | 1940 |
+| 9-2-08 | 1820 | Carlton Henry Hester (Church/Bunn) | C1 | Visitation | 200 |
+| 9-2-08 | 1740 | D/S Fox | PBSO | R-control | 1251 |
+| 9-2-08 | 1855 | Lawlor Thomas (clergy) | PBSO | L/M-control | 210 |
+| 9-2-08 | 1855 | Dicquet Robert (clergy) | C-8 | T-control | 200 |
+| 9-2-08 | 1855 | Prescott Deborah (clergy) | C-3 | C-control | 210 |
+| 9-2-08 | 1920 | Cowles Story (Public Def) | L-3 | T-Special to see inmate Epstein Jeff | 1950 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+
+
+**CENTRAL CONTROL**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 9-2-08 | 1:02 | Evelyn Wilford / Trinity Staff | PBSO | Quebec. | 1059 |
+| 9-2-08 | 6:35 | D. Pierre / Trinity | PBSO | Quebec | 1428 |
+| 9-2-08 | 6:35 | Bronstein | PBSO | JAMP | 1102 |
+| 9-2-08 | 7:20 | P. Edelman | PBSO | DAF | 1355 |
+| 9-2-08 | 7:07 | S. Wilkoff | PBSO | JAMP Drugfarm | 170 |
+| 9-2-08 | 7:29 | A. Wessinger | PBSO | JAMP Drugfarm | 1730 |
+| 9-2-08 | 7:30 | G. Sibson | PSO | JAMP Drugfarm | 1512 |
+| 9-2-08 | 7:30 | J. West | PBSO | JAMP Drugfarm | 1402 |
+| 9-2-08 | 7:34 | A. TROY | PBSO | Daf Drugfarm | 170 |
+| 9-2-08 | 7:39 | C. Hyttower | PBSO | JAMP Drugfarm | 1829 |
+| 9-2-08 | 7:45 | J. Badget | PBSO | Adult & Ed | 1307 |
+| 09-02-08 | 0756 | Terry Graves- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 0959 |
+| 09-02-08 | 0817 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1518 |
+| 09-02-08 | 0830 | Freddy Nunez- Simens | PBSO | Electrical room. | 0834 |
+| 09-02-08 | 0845 | [REDACTED] Oglesby- Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates. | 1028 |
+| 09-02-08 | 0848 | Linda [REDACTED]- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M: Saint Phart, Rodney (M-Dorm). | 0900 |
+| 09-02-08 | 0902 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1718 |
+| 09-02-08 | 0912 | Lee Harper- ESS | PBSO | Central Control | 1037 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1011 | Timothy Neff- PBCSB | PBSO | School classroom. | 1307 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1018 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1905 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1058 | Jirote Javanadi- ESS | PBSO | ESS en route to Intake Control. | 1129 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1101 | Harry [REDACTED]- T-Netix | PBSO | En route to Telephone Room. | 1455 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1102 | Arthur Harper- ESS | PBSO | En route on the compound to various dorms. | 1200 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1156 | Story Cowles- Papalegal | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special) | 1352 |
+| 09-02-08 | 1200 | Caitlin Bronstein- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 10013 |
+
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|--------|---------|-----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------------------|
+| 9/3/08 | 0755 | JAY BADGETT (TEACHER) | PBJD | CLASKROM | 1139 |
+| 9/3/08 | 0813 | RONY NOFESTON | V1 | MESER READING | 0846 |
+| 9/3/08 | 0815 | JERRY GRAVES (SAAP) | PBJD | DRYG FARM | 1128 |
+| 9/3/08 | 0825 | JEANETTE CROWDER (PROBATIONS) | PBJD | DRYG FARM | 1535 |
+| 9/3/08 | 0910 | ELTA EMILCAR (TRINITY) | PBJD | Q-BLDG | 1743 |
+| 9/3/08 | 0918 | JAIANNA SEABORNE | PBJD | VARIOUS | 1011 |
+| 9/3/08 | 0940 | LEE ROY CAIN (TRINITY SERVICES) | V1 | Q-BLDG | 1200 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1030 | DANIELLE HIRSKI (SUPPER P.D.) | V2 | BOOKING | 1044 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1030 | JARED KENNERON (SUPPER P.D.) | V3 | BOOKING | 1044 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1155 | STORY COWLES (PARA-LEGAL) | L1 | T-SPECIAL | 1305 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1157 | PATRICIA NENBY | PBJD | Q-BLDG | 1915 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1243 | STORY HARRY GREENE (SECURIS) | PBJD | VARIOUS | 1438 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1253 | JOSEPH VARIOUS (SAAP) | PBJD | DRYG FARM | 1625 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1344 | STORY COWLES (PARA-LEGAL) | L1 | T-SPECIAL | 1410 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1407 | LEONARDO TABORDA (P.D.) | PBJD | VARIOUS | 1620 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1415 | JESSICA WALLY (DAF) | PBJD | VARIOUS | 1700 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1420 | ROBERT NUMES | PBJD | DRYG FARM | 1658 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1421 | JAMES SUMMERS (JENDY WITNESS) | PBJD | T-DORM | 1942 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1520 | MALIK HASAN | PBJD | VARIOUS | 1605 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1610 | Lokoworth PD (Lokoworth County) | Letter | Rowland, Glenn - RBOS | 1640 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1610 | Lokoworth PD (Lokoworth County) | Letter | Rowland, Glenn - RBOS | 1640 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1720 | Sis. Bannister (Cheryl) | C1 | Drug farm | 1620 FS |
+| 9/3/08 | 1747 | Story Cowles | L1 | Epstein, Jeffrey - T-Spec. | 1968 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1800 | Sonathan Kaye | V-II | Drug Farm | 1942 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1820 | Marie Nicholass | L-1 | Intake | 1920 |
+| 9/3/08 | 1825 | Professor Anna L. | L-2 | | |
+
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|--------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 9-4-08 | 910 | Patrick Hewley | PBSO | Q-Building | 1745 |
+| 9-4-08 | 915 | Terry Greene | PBSO | Drug farm | 1612 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1000 | Mirame Ostrog | PBSO | Q-Building | 1501 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1200 | Hishui Lee (PD) | PBSO | T-RA-TB | |
+| 9-4-08 | 1200 | Story Crawler | CI | T-Speed | 1250 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1218 | Handy Delance | PBSO | T-Dorm | 1336 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1310 | Maya De Gusta | PBSO | C-Dorm | 1430 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1315 | Bradley Parker | V2 | Drug farm for Sgt Harris | 1407 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1328 | Pablo Gonzalez | PBSO | Drug farm | 1655 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1335 | Michel Complin (T-new) | PBSO | Telephone Room | 2020 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1340 | Kyle Cimo (PD) | PBSO | Company 1 | 1712 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1340 | Alexis Gonzalez (PAT) | U3 | Company 1 | 1715 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1340 | Stanley Bullard | PBSO | Company 1 | |
+| 9-4-08 | 1405 | Conrad Saddler (Ac-thrd) | PBSO | C-Dorm | |
+| 9-4-08 | 1418 | Sarah Karn | PBSO | Drug farm | 14/21 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1438 | John Keff (Wilcon) | U1 | Company 1 | 16.55 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1500 | Feir Sanchez | PBSO | C-Dorm | 1800 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1522 | Story Crawler | L1 | T-Speed | 1545 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1540 | Conrad Tabord | PBSO | T-Dorm | 1840 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1500 | MS Foley Rosberg | PBSO | Ilm KERISZ RB | 16.35 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1500 | MR CASPER (ATTY) | L2 | Ilm KERISZ RB | 1542 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1500 | MR MARC HEYTO DR ATTY | U3 | Ilm TOUISSAIT - ST | 1959 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1505 | MR GLOVER TURNOY | V3 | DREDGE FARM | 1908 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1507 | MS PLATO TOCKER | VII | DREDGE FARM | 2005 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1517 | MR BRESTER TURNOY | VIL | DREDGE FARM | 2005 |
+| 9-4-08 | 1507 | MR TOLSON AL | VIL | T-PDRM | 1918 |
+
+*"CENTRAL CONTROL"*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|--------|---------|-----------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|----------|
+| 9-5-08 | 1506 | Scott C. Penney- Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates. | 10:03 |
+| 9-5-08 | 1506 | Leonardo Taborda- Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates. | 12:25 |
+| 9-5-08 | 1533 | Induke Darren (Public Def) | L-3 | T-Special to see inmate Estlin | 12:28 |
+| 9-5-08 | 1740 | Jones Willie (Atlaney) | L-2 | Midam to see Capel Zabin | 12:13 |
+| 9-5-08 | 1755 | Newman, Laurence (Atlaney) | L-1 | T-Special to see inmate Estlin | 12:55 |
+| 9-5-08 | 1910 | MR GLORIE (Teachers) | V-4 | Don Farm - | 12:30 |
+| 9-5-08 | 1810 | MR GLORIE (Teachers) | V-8 | Don Farm | 12:30 |
+| 9-5-08 | 1810 | MR ALLEN (Teachers) | V-9 | Don Farm | 12:30 |
+| 9-5-08 | 1945 | Stephens Phillip (Atlaney) | V-4 | Drug Farm | 12:00 |
+| 9-5-08 | 2000 | Dansby Rashal " | V-8 | Drug Farm | 12:00 |
+| 9-5-08 | 2000 | Boellmitz Helmut " | V-9 | Drug Farm | 12:00 |
+| 9-5-08 | 2000 | Hendricks David " | V-7 | Drug Farm | 12:00 |
+| 9-5-08 | 2000 | Yar Bennady " | V-6 | Drug Farm | 12:00 |
+| 9-5-08 | 2000 | Brooks, Patricie " | V-5 | Drug Farm | 12:00 |
+| 9-5-08 | 2000 | McClellan, Adrian " | V-2 | Drug Farm | 12:00 |
+| 9-5-08 | 2000 | Porter, Ketrie " | V-1 | Drug Farm | 12:00 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|---------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|------------|
+| 9.4.08 | 19:00 | Mr. Wolff | PA | SA - DALM | 2:10 |
+| 9.4.08 | 19:40 | Mr. REARMAN | PA | T - DORM | 2:05 |
+| 9.5.08 | 0130 | AUGUS PINKNEY (TRINITY) | PBSO | KATCHER | 1119 |
+| 9.5.08 | 0140 | EVELYN WILFORD (TRINITY) | PBSO | KATCHER | 1555 |
+| 9.5.08 | 0140 | CAITLIN BRONSTEIN (Drug Marker) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1) #2 1035 |
+| 9.5.08 | 0135 | GARY GIBSON (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1:20 |
+| 9.5.08 | 0135 | MICHAEL WEST (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1531 |
+| 9.5.08 | 0142 | ANGELICA WEISSINGER | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1:07 |
+| 9.5.08 | 0750 | Chevelle Hytower- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1:30 |
+| 9.5.08 | 0752 | Patricia Edelman- BAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1502 |
+| 9-05-08 | 0754 | Sysan Wilkoff- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1744 |
+| 9-05-08 | 0757 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB | PBSO | School Teacher | 1127 |
+| 9-05-08 | 0834 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1452 |
+| 9-05-08 | 0902 | D/S Maharry ePB60- Deputy | PBSO | On the compound. | 0915 |
+| 9-05-08 | 0914 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1750 |
+| 9-05-08 | 0937 | Ath Arthur Harper- ESS | PBSO | En route to G/H-Dorm. | 1040 |
+| 9-05-08 | 1028 | Pablo Gonzalez- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1128 |
+| 9-05-08 | 1211 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1920 |
+| 9-05-08 | 1206 | Darren Indyke- Attorney | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffry (T-Special). | 1446 |
+| 9-05-08 | 1222 | Michael Lumpkins- T-Netix | PBSO | T-Dorm and J/K-Dorm to repair i/m's phone. | 1230 |
+| 9-05-08 | 1227 | Nancy Valencia- SAAP | PBSO | L-Dorm and T-Dorm to see inmates. | 1403 |
+| 9-05-08 | 1258 | Caitlin Bronstein- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 100 |
+| 9-05-08 | 1315 | [REDACTED] Varju- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1107 |
+| 9-05-08 | 1316 | [REDACTED] Nelson- Max | PBSO | Intake Booking area. | 13:42 |
+| 9-5-08 | 1402 | SAAP - KORMA- DAF | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1600 |
+
+Case 5-08-08-Y-801109-KAIM Document 540-3 Entered on Fri 3D Docket 05/07/2019 Page 31 of 62
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|--------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|----------|
+| 9-6-08 | 1:35 | Mr. Pinkoey / Trinity Staff | PBSO | Quebec | 1045 |
+| 9-6-08 | 6:47 | Mr. Habiett / Trinity Staff | PBSO | Quebec | 1235 |
+| 9-6-08 | 7:18 | Jessica Wally | PBSO | D.A.F. | 1125 |
+| 09-06-08 | 0859 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1351 |
+| 09-06-08 | 0900 | Stephen Alexander- Doctor | V-12 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1105 |
+| 09-06-08 | 0904 | Linda Leary- United Deliverance Min. | PBSO | Various dorms. | 0924 |
+| 09-06-08 | 0951 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1842 |
+| 09-06-08 | 1203 | Darren Indyke- Attorney | L-4 | I/M:Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1337 |
+| 09-06-08 | 1252 | Bryan Larsen FPL | V11 | Compound to check meters | 1316 |
+| 09-06-08 | 1400 | Deting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1720 |
+| 9-6-08 | 1630 | Estein Berlsch | P.B.SO | I/M Bryant Willie; Delbosque; | — |
+| | | | | Digradio, John; Lesinon, Darrell | 1815 |
+| 9-6-08 | 1805 | Story Cowles | L-4 | Epstein, Jeffrey | 2055 |
+| 9-6-08 | 1827 | David Smith | L-3 | I/M Edge Tyrone | 1935 |
+| 9-7-08 | 0116 | Mrs. Evelyn Xifford Trinity Staff | PBSO | Quebec | 0918 |
+| 9-7-08 | 0728 | Mrs. Ca. Hinbronstein/DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1858 |
+| 09-07-08 | 0818 | Susan Wilkoff- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1239 |
+| 09-07-08 | 0905 | Stephen Alexanger- Doctor | V-10 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1236 |
+| 09-07-08 | 0907 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1239 |
+| 09-07-08 | 1006 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1841 |
+| 09-07-08 | 1216 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-4 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1512 |
+| 09-07-08 | 1520 | Nicole Sauvole- Attorney | L-4 | I/M: Albury, Jarrett (B-Dorm). | 1630 |
+| 09-07-08 | 1520 | Wayne Sauvole- PI | V-10 | I/M: Albury, Jarrett (B-Dorm). | 1630 |
+| 9/7/08 | 1818 | World Foley | PBSO | I/M Gross, Albert | 1850 |
+| 9/7/08 | 1835 | Cowles, Story | L-4 | I/M Epstein, Jeffrey | 2048 |
+| 9/7/08 | 1845 | Caldhorne - The Is | V-3 | I/M Sandis, T. M. | 2005 |
+
+legals@pms.com
+
+Entered on FLSD Declaration No. 05/07/2016 Page 32 of 6
+
+Entered on FLSD Declaration No. 05/07/2016 Page 32 of 6
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+U MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE UWEST COUNTY DETENTION J DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS I | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|--------------|-------------|---------------------------------------------|---------|---------------------------------------|------------------------|
+| 09-09-08 | 0905 | Clifford Cobb- S-T-H | PBSO | en route on the compound w/Lt. Bird. | 122/ |
+| 09-09-08---- | 0910 | Tracy Public Defender | PBSO | R and S area | 0942 |
+| 09-09-08 | 0951 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | MID |
+| 09-09-08 | 0955 | Nicole =- Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates: | 1358 |
+| 09-09-08 | 1014 | Jeffrey Martinolich-Vulcan Pest Control V-6 | | On the compound en route to G/H-Dorm. | 1045 |
+| 09-09-08 | 1015 | Suann Interview | V-17 | Interview w/Nurse Whitten. | 1108 |
+| 09-09-08 | 1117 | Susan Wilkoff- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | )7/4 |
+| 09-09-08 | 1201 | Story Crowles- Paralegal | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T—Special). | 1250 |
+| 09-09-08 | 1224 | Pablo SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | /12W |
+| 09-09-08 | 1258 | Sabarish Neelakanta- Atty | t-2 | Various dorms | 1445 |
+| 09-09-08 | 1346 | Lionel Samuels- DOC Probation Officer | V-10 | I/M: Frazier, Joshua (T-39). | 1430 |
+| 09-09-08 | 1346 | Donn Grice— DOC Probation Officer | V-12 | I/M: Frazier, Joshua (T-39). | 1430 |
+| 09-09—OR | 1347 | Bernard Willis- Fern House | V-8 | I/M: Singh, Arioon (SA18). | 1428 |
+| 09-09-08 | 1415 | ' "Sarah Korn— DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | /70 6 |
+| 09-no-fig | 1415 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | i701) |
+| 09-09-08 | 1440 | Kenneth Huxhold- SAAP | PBSO | R and S area. | -152,2 |
+| 09-09-08 | 1506 | Jack Goldberger- Attorney | L=4 ' | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T—Special) | /4//) • |
+| 09-09-09 | 1542 | Leonardo Tabordo- Public Defender | PBSO | R and S- area to see inmates. | ifr43--# |
+| 09-09-08 | ' 1542 | Ar 1•11:ozoberi;/ , | ii-id | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | fd/141.5 |
+| 9-75, | /go | 1 11 .fretiaet | | | |
+| | | | 4.-4 | ym Leal enfits c ").4 (nig- | neOf |
+| ir or | /Oil | | | | |
+| | | t LA) Q Af• 'eel | ti | Cr clip NAP'', | 21 AS |
+| | /Or /1-40 e | ,e..) | | | |
+| | | | 5 yefri | | |
+| g4-02 | | | | ....pnar c ies,...,....-t | Lea) |
+| q-f-oV | | | ,/ | | |
+| | | filoded 6.5 6 40e-t- | > Vivo | t--2 s (At- f;tn...n | 2.00 e |
+| | | BA) Ite it-A_I-5- tail 7 | V* | 1.-- g -k>onat ill ant bast | fi ffenCgiNitIOC" Pilo |
+| | | 11, elistra if-- | 0 | | |
+| | i 't. | | | | |
+| | | , 141.A.L.C.-c | | | |
+| | | tb•*""" . f A / | A SCA | | Arcatil |
+
+Cq. O I-a c° co (!) oc° 9 m N.) cn z fD 0 rTi In 0 n°o 0 0 N.) 0 0 u:) ,Dwco
+
+kl
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 9-9-08 | 1450 | MICHAEL NIPON (Cleary) | #6 | C-Donm | 2020 |
+| 9-9-08 | 1850 | KEVIN MCQUORE (Cleary) | #3 | S-Donm | 2010 |
+| 9-9-08 | 1850 | Georgial Mapothy (Cleary) | #7 | RA-Donm | 2010 |
+| 9-9-08 | 1850 | Thomas Lawlog (Cleary) | PBSD | S-Donm | 2020 |
+| 9-9-08 | 1910 | Stanley Cowles Quarterled | #4 | T-Special Experts Seffary | 2115 |
+| | 1950 | Welson Bunbage (A.A.) | #2 | T-Donm | 2100 |
+| 9-9-08 | 2020 | Gerald Kuchinsky | #2 | SB-Donm - Andre Johnson | 2049 |
+| 9-10-08 | 1110 | Evelyn Wilford Trinity | PBSD | Q-Building | 1054 |
+| 9-10-08 | 10135 | Mrs. Green Trinity | PBSD | Q Building | |
+| 9-10-08 | 07:05 | P. Edelman DAF | PBSD | Drugfarm | 11010 |
+| 9-10-08 | 7:10 | T. Justin SAAP | PBSD | Drugfarm | 1650 |
+| 9-10-08 | 7:20 | A. Troy SAAP | PBSD | Drugfarm | 1622 |
+| 9-10-08 | 7:34 | G. Gibson | PBSD | Drugfarm | 1539 |
+| 9-16-08 | 7:36 | E. Bronstein SAAP | PBSD | Drugfarm | 1614 |
+| 9-10-08 | 7:45 | A. Wessinger DAF | PBSD | Drugfarm | 11050 |
+| 9-10-08 | 7:45 | C. Hy-lower SAAP | PBSD | Drugfarm | 11057 |
+| 9-10-08 | 7:48 | A. Troy | PBSD | Drugfarm | 1000 |
+| 9-10-08 | 7:50 | S. Wilkoff | PBSD | Drugfarm | 1858 |
+| 9-10-08 | 07:56 | JAY BADGETT (PBJAB) | PBSD | CLAWROOM | 1251 |
+| 9-10-08 | 08:01 | TERRY GRAVES (SAAP) | PBSD | DRUG FARM | 1112 |
+| 9-10-08 | 08:07 | JOHN HABICHT (TRINITY) | PBSD | Q-BLDG | 1523 |
+| 9-10-08 | 09:10 | Jaanna Seaborne | PBSD | R-M-Donm | 1002 |
+| 9-10-08 | 09:23 | JEANETTE CLOWDER (PROBATION) | PBSD | DRUG FARM | |
+| 9-10-08 | 09:33 | KAY OGOLSBY (P.D.) | PBSD | VARIOUS | 1206 |
+| 9-10-08 | 09:53 | PATRICIA NEWBY (TRINITY) | PBSD | Q-BLDG | 1960 |
+| 9-10-08 | 11:05 | AL PLINDIFF TRINITY (IFAITU NEFT) | VI | TNI OFFICE IFAINADE | 11100 |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|------------|
+| 9/10/08 | 1257 | STORY COWLES (PARA-LEGAL) | L1 | T-SPECIAL (F/M: EPSTEIN, J) | 1400 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1255 | PAROLO COMZOLEZ (DAF) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1621 |
+| 9/10/08 | BCH | JERRY WOODE II (PD) | PBSO | A-DORM | 1325 |
+| 9/10/08 | M12 | ALFRED MILLER (PD) | PBJO | VARIOUS | 1505 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1415 | JESSICA WALLY (BDF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1710 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1539 | JOSEPHINE VACCIANA | L1 | VARIOUS | 1700 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1549 | JACK GOLDBERGER (AITY) | L2 | T-SPECIAL (F/M: EPSTEIN, J) | 1730 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1650 | SCOTT PENNEY (P.D.) | PBJO | VARIOUS | 1650 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1735 | Sister Bannister | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1933 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1755 | JONATHAN DAVID KAYE | V-11 | Drug Farm | 1940 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1810 | STORY AUSTIN COWLES | L-2 | T-SPECIAL | 1920 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1830 | Pedro Imas | C-2 | Church | 2066 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1830 | ALSACIC Sakellis | C-3 | Church | 2000 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1830 | MARIA BARRICA | C-5 | Church | 2000 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1850 | MARTHA SWARTZ (AA) | V-12 | C DORM | 20:02 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1850 | KRISTINE COHN (AA) | V-13 | C DORM | 20:04 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1850 | JRA SCOTT SKIER (PD) | L-2 | STA DORM | 20:02 2039 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1851 | REBECCA ANTICO (NA) | V-11 | C DORM | 2109 |
+| 9/10/08 | 1855 | RICARDO KEYES | V-1 | JK | 2109 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0115 | Evelyn Wilford | PBSO | Trinity Staff | 1019 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0710 | Tim Justin | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1630 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0730 | A. Weissner | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1710 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0625 | Elizabeth Green | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1440 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0430 | CURTIS PINKEY | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1045 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0735 | GRAY GIBSON | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1534 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0736 | | PBSO | | 1710 |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|--------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 9/11/08 | 0745 | Michael West | PBJO | Drug farm | 1534 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0745 | Todd Edelman | PBJO | Drug farm | 1600 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0747 | Jue Wilcoff | PBJO | Drug farm | 1700 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0748 | Iray Ostelon | PBJO | Drug farm | 1625 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0750 | Doden Tim | PBJO | Administration | |
+| 9/11/08 | 0809 | JAY BADGETT (PBCJB) | PBJO | CLAWROOM | 12:28 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0844 | ROBERT HUMES (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1655 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0900 | GAIL BREMNER (K9) | VI | DRUG FARM | 1121 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0900 | LINDA HAWTHORNE (K9) | VI | DRUG FARM | 1121 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0902 | JOHN HABICHT (TRINITY) | PBJO | Q-BLDG | 1508 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0912 | PATRICIA NEWBY (TRINITY) | PBJO | Q-BLDG | 1740 |
+| 9/11/08 | 0116 | JEANETTE CROWDER (PROBATIONS) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | |
+| 9/11/08 | 1006 | MIRLANDE OSTING (TRINITY) | PBJO | Q-BLDG | |
+| 9/11/08 | 1210 | STORY COWLES (PARA-LEGAL) | LI | T-SPECIAL (F/M: EPSTEIN, J) | 1924 |
+| 9/11/08 | 1222 | BERNARD WILLIS (FIRM HOUSE) | VI | G/H + L-DORMS | 12:40 |
+| 9/11/08 | 12:37 | HANNY VALENCIA (Affairs) | PBJO | AIT DORMS | 12:44 |
+| 9/11/08 | 12:40 | DULCE REYES (NURSE) | PBJO | MEDICAL | 1403 |
+| 9/11/08 | 12:45 | SEFFREY MARTINOBICH | VI | G-1 (VULCAN PEST CONTROL) | 1404 |
+| 9/11/08 | 1304 | ANGELA PAGAN (P.D.) | PBJO | VARIOUS | 1332 |
+| 9/11/08 | 1305 | JOJEPH VARJU (JAAP) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | |
+| 9/11/08 | 1323 | KENNETH HIXHOLD (JAAP) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | |
+| 9/11/08 | 1342 | PABLO GONZALEZ (JAAP) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | |
+| 9/11/08 | 1400 | SARAH KORN (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | |
+| 9/11/08 | 1420 | LAUREN DRZEWICK (CHILD+FAMILY) | VI | T-DORM | 1710 |
+| 9/11/08 | 1420 | HANNAH HARRION (CHILD+FAMILY) | VI | T-DORM | 1446 |
+| 9/11/08 | 1426 | DAVID CASALS (AIT) | VI | T-DORM | 1446 |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|--------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|-------------|
+| 9/11/08 | 1435 | ADAM LAWSINO (P.D.) | PBJO | VAROLIS | 1515 |
+| 9/11/08 | 1542 | STORY COWLES (PARA-LEGAL) | LI | T-SPECIAL (F/M: ESPTEIN, J.) | 1810 |
+| 9/11/08 | 1543 | NOBLE PARSONS (P.D.) | PBJO | RB-DORM | 1600 |
+| 9/11/08 | 1810 | Andrew Bernstein | V-1L | T-DORM | 1934 |
+| 9/11/08 | 1857 | John Brewer | V-12 | 3A DORM | 2013 |
+| 9/11/08 | 1857 | John Elliott | V-13 | 3A DORM | 2013 |
+| 9/11/08 | 20:00 | Christopher Aenry | V-11 | 3A T-DORM | 21:04 |
+| 9/12/08 | 0130 | CLARA PINKLEY | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1055 |
+| 9/12/08 | 0514 | SUSAN WILKOPF (SAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1139 |
+| 9/12/08 | 0245 | ELIZABETH GREEN | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1422 |
+| 9/12/08 | 0723 | ARTHUR TROY (SAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1619 |
+| 9/12/08 | 0723 | MICHAEL WEST | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 437 |
+| 9/12/08 | 0721 | PATRICIA EDELMAN | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1600 |
+| 9/12/08 | 0730 | ANGELINE WEISSINGER | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1745 |
+| 9/12/08 | 0732 | GARY GIBSON | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1513 |
+| 9/12/08 | 0735 | CHEVELLE HYTONEZ | PBY | DRUG FARM | 1641 |
+| 09/12/08 | 0804 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB | PBSO | Classroom. | 1134 |
+| 09/12/08 | 0820 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1523 |
+| 09/12/08 | 0916 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 112 |
+| 09/12/08 | 1117 | Terry Graves- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1200 |
+| 09/12/08 | 1121 | Arthur Harper- ESS | PBSO | On the compound to G/H-Dorm. | 1158 |
+| 09/12/08 | 1157 | Story Crowles- Paralegal | L-2 | I/M: Esptein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1256 |
+| 09/12/08 | 1158 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1850 |
+| 09/12/08 | 1220 | Bernard Willis - Fern house | V-12 | L-dorm | 1303 |
+| 09/12/08 | 1238 | Nancy Valencia - SAAP | PBSO | T-dorm | |
+| 09/12/08 | 1239 | Forsuth Valencia - SAAP | PBSO | | |
+
+ Case 9:08-cr-801-15-KAM Document 540-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 37 of 62
+ ESP - Entry Sensory Paralegal
+ logiclasd@enr.com
+
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+ STOCKADE
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+ DRUG FARM
+
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|----------|
+| 09/12/08 | 1321 | Pablo [REDACTED] - DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1540 |
+| 09/12/08 | 1409 | Sarah Korn- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1659 |
+| 09/12/08 | 1416 | Robert Humes- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1651 |
+| 09/12/08 | 1443 | Scott C Penney- Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms on the compound./ | 1551 |
+| 09/12/08 | 1528 | Jack Goldberger - Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1621 |
+| 9/12/08 | 1806 | Marvin Glover | V-12 | Drug Farm | 1935 |
+| 9/12/08 | 1900 | Annette Allen | V-13 | Drug Farm | 1935 |
+| 9/12/08 | 1819 | Stephan Alexander | V-11 | T-Special | 1911 |
+| 9/12/08 | 1835 | Story Cowles | V-1 | T-Special | 2102 |
+| 9/12/08 | 2000 | Philippe Stephens AA | V-11 | Drug Farm | 2107 |
+| 9/12/08 | 2000 | Helmut Goellinitz | V-17 | Drug Farm | 2109 |
+| 9/12/08 | 2000 | Rashad Dansby | V-16 | Drug Farm | 2101 |
+| 9/12/08 | 2000 | Leroy Welson III | V-15 | Drug Farm | 2109 |
+| 9/12/08 | 2000 | Gennady Youn | V-13 | Drug Farm | 2109 |
+| 9/12/08 | 2000 | Thomas F. [REDACTED] | V-8 | Drug Farm | 2109 |
+| 9/12/08 | 2000 | Levin Larkin | V-17 | Drug Farm | 2109 |
+| 9/13/08 | 0135 | Curtis Rinkney | PBSO | Trinity Staff - Quebec | 1203 |
+| 9/13/08 | 0135 | Jessua Wolley | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1119 |
+| 09/13/08 | 0912 | Christopher Mousally-Process Server | V-7 | I/M: Arnette, Antwan (G-Dorm). | 0920 |
+| 09/13/08 | 0919 | D/S [REDACTED] - Agent | PBSO | Adult Custody Office. | 0922 |
+| 09/13/08 | 0934 | Darren Indyke- Attorney | L-2 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1419 |
+| 09/13/08 | 0951 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1815 |
+| 09/13/08 | 1115 | D/S S. [REDACTED] - Deputy | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1144 |
+| 09/13/08 | 1213 | [REDACTED] Pagano- Paralegal | L-2 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1509 |
+| 09/13/08 | 1415 | David Smith PIB | L-1 | NB Dorm see I/m Tyrone Edge | 1040 |
+| 09/13/08 | 1371 | Daniel McFadden | L-1 | NB Dorm see I/m Tyrone Edge | 1040 |
+
+ ESP - 62
+ Entered on Fri 30 Docket 05/07/2010 Page 36 of 62
+ Esp Sensor
+ Paralegal
+ legalrights.com
+
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|---------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|----------|
+| 9/13/08 | 1801 | Gary Gibson (mentomen) | PBSO | C Dorm | 2030 |
+| 9/13/08 | 1810 | Michele Darten | V-3 | C Dorm | 2030 |
+| 9/13/08 | 1830 | Darren K. Indyke | L-2 | T-Special to see Epstein Jeffrey | 2033 |
+| 9/13/08 | 1801 | Prince Anna (mentomen) | V-9 | C Dorm and Dorm | 2030 |
+| 9/14/08 | 01:05 | Evelyn Wilford / Trinity | PBSO | Quebee | 1156 |
+| 9/14/08 | 7:00 | D/S Wilson / Deputy | PBSO | Sgt. Office | 0800 |
+| 9/14/08 | 7:10 | Mr. Troy / Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1231 |
+| 9/14/08 | 7:30 | Mr. Edleman / Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1108 |
+| 09/14/08 | 0735 | D/S R. [REDACTED] - Deputy | PBSO | Sgt. Office | 0758 |
+| 09/14/08 | 0937 | Darren Indyke - Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1420 |
+| 09/14/08 | 0949 | Mirlande Osting - Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1810 |
+| 09/14/08 | 1248 | Patricia Edelman - SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1605 |
+| 09/14/08 | 1341 | Arthur Troy | PBSO | SAAP | 1555 |
+| 09/14/08 | 1457 | Stephen Alexander - Doctor | V-10 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1814 |
+| 9/14/08 | 1900 | Joseph Pagging | L-1 | I/M Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special) | 1818 |
+| 9/14/08 | 1905 | Arnold Prosperi | L-8 | I/M Epstein Jeffrey (T-Special) | 1945 |
+| 9/14/08 | 1824 | Jack Goldberger | L-3 | I/M Epstein Jeffrey (T-Special) | 1207 |
+| 9/14/08 | 1851 | Story Crowles | L-1 | I/M Epstein Jeffrey (T-Special) | 2124 |
+| 9-14-08 | 1936 | ADAM BIANCHINI (A.4) | V-12 | TANGO DORM | 2100 |
+| 9-15-08 | 0114 | Evelyn Wilford (Trinity) | PBSO | Quebee | 1313 |
+| 9-15-08 | 0628 | Debben Anning (Drug Farm) | PBSO | Drug farm area - STAFF | (PBSO) |
+| 9-15-08 | 0783 | Elizabeth Green (Trinity) | PBSO | Quebee | 1620 |
+| 9-15-08 | 0719 | Arthur Troy (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1127 |
+| 9-15-08 | 0723 | Patricia Edelman (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1216 |
+| 9-15-08 | 0730 | Gary Gibson (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1510 |
+| 9-15-08 | 0711 | Tom Turaha | PBSO | Sgt. Office | 0240 |
+
+ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 540-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 39 of 62
+ ESP - Extra Sensory Paralegal
+
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|-----------------------|---------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|----------|
+| 9-15-08 | 7:41 | Michael West (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1538 |
+| 09-15-08 | 7:43 | Angeliki Wessinger (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 17:50 |
+| 09-15-08 | 0750 | Caitlin Bronstein- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1124 |
+| 09-15-08 | 0758 | Timothy Justin - SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 16:10 |
+| 09-15-08 | 0759 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | |
+| 09-15-08 | 0804 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB | PBSO | Classroom Teacher. | 1125 |
+| 09-15-08 | 0804 | Chevelle Hytower- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 16:40 |
+| 09-15-08 | 0818 | Susan Wilkoff- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 18:00 |
+| 09-15-08 | 0857 | Gail Bremner- Pet Care | V-14 | Drug Farm area. | 1111 |
+| 09-15-08 | 0908 | Dena Paquetta- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1335 |
+| 09-15-08 | 0914 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 17:00 |
+| 09-15-08 | 1030 | Jalisa V. Steele- Armour | V-12 | Medical ( New employee). | 1530 |
+| 09-15-08 | 1015 | CSP A. Lyles- PBSO | Retired en route to Adult Custody Office. | | 1140 |
+| 09-15-08 | 1204 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 18:10 |
+| 09-15-08 | 1208 | Arthur Troy- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1522 |
+| 09-15-08 | 1215 | Story Crowles- Paralegal | L-3 - | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1335 |
+| 09-15-08 | 1222 | Caitlin Bronstein- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 16:10 |
+| 09-15-2008 | 12:55 | [REDACTED] Varju - SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area | 16:55 |
+| 09-15-08 | 1310 | Pablo [REDACTED] - DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1532 |
+| 09/15/08 | 1402 | Sarah Korn - DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm | 16:55 |
+| 09/15/08 | 1405 | Robert Humes -DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm | 16:00 |
+| 09/15/08 | 1412 | Paul William (PD) | PBSO | L-Dorm | 1502 |
+| 09/15/08 | 1505 | Alexander Edmonds (Probation/Parole) | L3 - | Intake | 1530 |
+| 09/15/08 - | 1538 | Jerry Wade (PD) | PBSO | D-Dorm | 16:00 |
+| 9-15-08, 18:00 | | Alise Genez | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1940 |
+| | | | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1940 |
+
+
+
+CENTRAL CONTROL
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/NMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|---------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|----------|
+| 9-15.08 | 15:15 | Robert Caitton (Allensey) | L#2 | T-Dorm Epstein S. | 2000 |
+| 9-15.08 | 15:15 | Jack Goldberger (Allensey) | L#3 | T-Dorm Epstein S. | 2000 |
+| 9-15.08 | 18:30 | Laurence Handreff (Clause) | L#1 | Church | 2000 |
+| 9-15.08 | 19:00 | Sofiy Screeney (RA) | L#11 | Drug Farm - e-Dorm | 2005 |
+| 9/15/08 | 1910 | Storry Coxvilles (P.L.) | L-1 | T-Special (J. Epstein) | 2107 |
+| 9-15.08 | 1945 | Hilda Collies (Allensey) | L#12 | e-Dorm | 2106 |
+| 9-15.08 | 2000 | Lepine Twarey (Allensey) | L#13 | e-Dorm | 2106 |
+| 9-15.08 | 1111 | John Lickent (RA) | L#3 | T-Dorm | 2106 |
+| 9-15.08 | 1111 | Balans Damano (RA) | L#1 | Drug Farm | 2106 |
+| 9-16.08 | 0143 | Emelyn Wil Ford (Trinity) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1143 |
+| 9-16/08 | 0049 | Elizabeth Greene (Trinity) | PBSO | Quebec | 1143 |
+| 9/16/08 | 009A | Anthony Troy (Trinity (SAAP)) | PBSO | Quebec Drug Farm | 1615 |
+| 9/16/08 | 0718 | Terrorist Sustin (SAAP) | PBSO | Quebec Drug Farm | 1157 |
+| 9/16/08 | 0723 | Cristin Bronstein (SAAP) | PBSO | Quebec Drug Farm | 1615 |
+| 9/16/08 | 0729 | Say Budgert (SAAP) | PBSO | Quebec Drug Farm | 1124 |
+| 9/16/08 | 0729 | Michael West (SAAP) | PBSO | Quebec Drug Farm | 1528 |
+| 9/16/08 | 0729 | Clarence William Fullen (Wed) | V-11 | Class Room | 1021 |
+| 9/16/08 | 0729 | Tom Stellen (RA) | PBSO | Class Room | 1021 |
+| 9/16/08 | 0729 | Peteraci Edelman (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1610 |
+| 9/16/08 | 0731 | Gary Gibson (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1544 |
+| 9/16/08 | 0744 | Chevin Hydewer (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1705 |
+| 09/16/08 | 0755 | Angeliki Weissenger-SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1736 |
+| 09/16/08 | 0758 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1517 |
+| 09/16/08 | 0815 | Jean Fils-Aime- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M: [REDACTED], James (RA18). | 0851 |
+| 09/16/08 | 0904 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1715 |
+| 09/16/08 | 0904 | Dona Douglas- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1243 |
+
+legalsafe.com
+
+ESP - Document 540-3
+Entry Session
+Paralays
+
+U MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+" CF:NTRAT. CONTROL "
+
+S STOCKADE LI WEST COUNTY DETENTION 0 DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|----------|
+| 09-16-08 | 0925 | Stephen Lankau- Attorney | L-5 | I/M: Masters, Stephen (A-Dorm). | 1008 |
+| 09-16-08 | 0925 | Henry Wynne- Paralegal | V-2 | I/M: Masters, Stephen (A-Dorm). | 1008 |
+| 09-16-08 | 1012 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1825 |
+| 09-16-08 | 1014 | Jemel Heading- D.O.C Probation Officer | V-12 | I/M: Karney, Anthony (H-Dorm). | 1037 |
+| 09-16-08 | 1110 | Lt. Milo- PBSO | Staff | Line-up room. | 1230 |
+| 09-16-08 | 1135 | Major Kneisley- PBSO | Staff | Line-up room. | 1230 |
+| 09-16-08 | 1135 | Major Waldrop-PBSO | Staff | Line-up room. | 1230 |
+| 09-16-08 | 1135 | Captain Cecere-PBSO | Staff | Line-up room. | 1230 |
+| 09-16-08 | 1135 | Captain Sleeth- PBSO | Staff | Line-up room. | 1230 |
+| 09-16-08 | 1207 | Story Crowles- Paralegal | L-2 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1404 |
+| 09-16-08 | 1257 | ██████ Varju- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 165 |
+| 09-16-08 | 1324 | Pablo ██████ | PBSO | Drug Farm Area. | 165 |
+| 09-16-08 | 1410 | Sarah Korn- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1705 |
+| 09-16-08 | 1410 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1705 |
+| 09-16-08 | 1401 | Jerry Wade- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M: ██████, V (SA18). | 1426 |
+| 09-16-08 | 1448 | Phillip Wall- D.O.C Probation Officer | V-2 | I/M: David, Arthur (L-Dorm). | 1504 |
+| 09-16-08 | 1410 | Annold prosperal (Qual.) | LHS | T-Special Epstein | 1930 |
+| 9-16-08 | 1410 | Mandin Calgeran (Tenchan) | VH1 | Drug Farm | 1955 |
+| 9-16-08 | 1410 | Andrette Allen (Tenchan) | VH12 | Drug Farm | 1955 |
+| 9-16-08 | 1410 | Quitis Moore (Process S.) | VH13 | Jintake Sunde Sill | 1850 |
+| 9-16-08 | 1850 | Thomas Lawlorn (desig) | PBSO | Q-Dorm | 2010 |
+| 9-16-08 | 1850 | Robert Duguet clausiy | CH1 | T-Dorm | 2080 |
+| 9-16-08 | 1850 | Michael Dillow | CH2 | Q-Dorm | 2010 |
+| 9-16-08 | 1850 | Revin Meguede | CH3 | T-Dorm | 2000 |
+| 9-16-08 | 1855 | Story Cowles Qual. Legal | LH1 | T-Special | 2045 |
+| 9-16-08 | 1811 | Lord Miller Marian Collinson | LH1 | DL - Landos T. | 1955 |
+
+Nm CT) a. 0 11 In r 0 0 C) CD 0 0'
+
+
+
+ Cv-80119-KAM Document 540-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 43 of 62
+
+
+| MAIN DETENTION CENTER | | STOCKADE | | WEST COUNTY DETENTION | | DRUG FARM | |
+|-----------------------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|-----------|--|
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 12:13 | Story Casules (Paralyzed) | L#1 | Philip Cole (A-Dorm) | 1405 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 12:17 | Myela Waler (HAM) | L#2 | D. Dorm (Epistem) | 1303 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 12:20 | Mr. Every (Protruder) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1600 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 12:54 | JOHN VARD | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1400 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 12:57 | PABIO GONZALEZ (PDF) | L3 | T-SPECIAL | 1457 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 13:01 | JACK GOLDBEKER (AITY) | L2 | T-DORM | 1526 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 13:15 | BRUCE REINHART (AITY) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1605 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 13:48 | NANCY VALENCIA (SAMP) | PBJO | VARIOUS | 1658 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 14:12 | KENNETH HIXNOLD (JAAP) | PBJO | VARIOUS | 1839 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 14:12 | SCOTT PENNEY (P.D) | PBJO | VARIOUS | 1947 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 15:17 | SCOTT PENNEY (P.D) | PBJO | Centeen | 1944 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 15:24 | MARTINE JEAN BAPTISTE | PBJO | Drug Farm | 1405 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 16:25 | Marlon MORENO | PBJO | Drug Farm | 1954 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 16:25 | Sister Brunnister | PBJO | RA Dorm | 2124 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 17:44 | Steve Anderson Education | PBJO | T-Special | 2015 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 18:01 | Steve Anderson (PI) | V-3 | T-Dorm | 1955 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 19:20 | Tlance Marcus (PI) | L-1 | T-Dorm | 1955 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 19:20 | Stephen Alexander DR | V-4 | T-Dorm | 1955 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 19:25 | Stephen Alexander DR | V-4 | T-Dorm | 1955 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 19:25 | Story Cowles (NA) | V-4 | T-Dorm | 1955 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 19:25 | Steven Curtis (NA) | V-4 | T-Dorm | 1955 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 19:45 | Steven Curtis (NA) | V-4 | T-Dorm | 1955 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 19:45 | Robert McGraw (NA) | PBJO | Clercy | 1955 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 19:45 | Barrin Valladares | V-5 | C Dorm | 1955 | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 19:45 | Barrin Swartz (AA) | V-11 | C Dorm | | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 19:45 | Barrin Swartz (AA) | PBJO | Clercy | | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 19:45 | Eristine Cohn (AA) | PBJO | T-Dorm | | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 19:45 | Aida Rivera | PBJO | T-Dorm | | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 19:45 | James Jumm DR | PBJO | T-Dorm | | | |
+| 9-17-08 | 19:45 | James Jumm DR | V-2 | T-Dorm | | | |
+
+Central Control
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|---------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|-----------------|
+| 9-18-08 | 1418 | Kenneth Huxhold | PBSO | T-Dorm | 1514 |
+| 9-18-08 | 143 | Robert Humes | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1653 |
+| 9-18-08 | 1459 | Story Cowles | L-2 | T-Special | PBSO |
+| 9-18-08 | 1806 | Michael Cowles T-Netfix, Inc | PBSO | T-Dorm SB Dorm RB Dorm | 2102 |
+| 9-18-08 | 1811 | Arnold Prosperi | L-2 | T-Special Epstein | PBSO |
+| 9-18-08 | 1854 | Thomas Abell (AA) | V-7 | SB Dorm | 2005 |
+| 9-18-08 | 1854 | Joe Buest (AA) | V+2 | SB Dorm | 2005 |
+| 9-18-08 | 1950 | Jonnie Perkins (AA) | V- | T-Dorm | 2110 |
+| 9-18-08 | 2011 | Story Cowles (PL) | L-2 | T-Special Epstein J | 2104 |
+| 9-18-08 | 2127 | Siam Jude Joseph (Attorney) | L-2 | RA Dorm (Joaseus, Jean Robert) | 2230 |
+| 9-18-08 | 2230 | Michael Lumkin T-Netfix | PBSO | L/M Contro Q-Dorm | 2245 |
+| 9-19-08 | 0130 | Custis Pinkney | PBSO | Trinity Staff - Quebec | 1040 |
+| 9-19-08 | 0500 | Susan Wildoff | PBSO | Drug Farm | 0000 |
+| 9-19-08 | 074 | Elizabeth Green | PBSO | Drug Farm | 2443 |
+| 9-19-08 | 0115 | Tim Justin | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1545 |
+| 9-19-08 | 0732 | Carol Bronstein | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1000 NAC |
+| 9-19-08 | 0745 | Haytown Chewelle | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1106 |
+| 9-19-08 | 0745 | Angel Wainstein | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1409 |
+| 09/19/08 | 0804 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB Teacher | PBSO | Scholl Classroom. | 1145 |
+| 09/19/08 | 0826 | Rodderick White- Unit Manager | PBSO | En route to Q-Bldg. | 0834 |
+| 09/19/08 | 0846 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1421 |
+| 09/19/08 | 0901 | Edwin [REDACTED] - Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Rodriquez, Sixto (B-Dorm). | 0922 |
+| 09/19/08 | 0916 | John Nowicki- D.O.C Probation Officer | V-14 | I/M: Peak, Ltwan (B-Dorm). | 1099 |
+| 09/19/08 | 0916 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1705 |
+| 09/19/08 | 0916 | Cristy Baker- Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates. | 1153 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1012 | | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1809 |
+
+ESP
+Extra Session
+Paralel
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 09/20/08 | 1025 | Stephen Kosslyn- Prof. | V-12 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1652 |
+| 09/20/08 | 1025 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1050 |
+| 09/20/08 | 1355 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1413 |
+| 09/20/08 | 1401 | ██████ Milow- Violent Crime Task Force | PBSO | I/M: ██████, Jose (SB18). | 1550 |
+| 09/20/08 | 1445 | ██████ Pagano- Paralegal | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1652 |
+| 09/20/08 | 1445 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1535 |
+| 9-20-08 | 1843 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-3 | Inm: Epstein Jeffrey (T-Special) | 2032 |
+| 9-20-08 | 1943 | Attorney David Royal Smith | L-1 | Inmate Edge Troone | 2037 |
+| 9-21-08 | 0125 | Evelyn Wilford | PBSO | Trinity Staff- Quebec | 0937 |
+| 9-21-08 | 0735 | Teoy Arthur | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1154 |
+| 09/21/08 | 0807 | Angeliki Wessinger- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1720 |
+| 09/21/08 | 0910 | Mirlande Osting-Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1738 |
+| 09/21/08 | 0922 | Chevelle Hytower- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1745 |
+| 09/21/08 | 0935 | Stephen Kosslyn- Prof. | V-8 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1336 |
+| 09/21/08 | 0935 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-5 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1005 |
+| 09/21/08 | 0944 | Linda ██████- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M's: ██████ (M-Dorm) and ██████ (SB18). | 1012 |
+| 09/21/08 | 1012 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1700 |
+| 09/21/08 | 1204 | ██████ Richstone- Attorney | L-3 | I/M: Nanfito, Byron (A-Dorm). | 1243 |
+| 09/21/08 | 1257 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1336 |
+| 09/21/08 | 1322 | Arthur Troy- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1605 |
+| 09/21/08 | 1459 | Mark ██████-Attorney | L-5 | I/M: Delana, Josebel (L-Dorm). | 1532 |
+| 09/21/08 | 1518 | Ingrid Abello- Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates. | 1557 |
+| 09/21/08 | 1531 | D/S Holman- Deputy | PBSO | Line-up room. | 1557 |
+| 09/21/08 | 1803 | Arnold Prosperi | L-5 | ██████ T-Special inm Epstein Jeffrey | 1557 |
+| 09/21/08 | 1850 | James Smith | L-1 | T-Dorm | 2104 |
+| 09/21/08 | 1805 | E. Linabeth Croan | PBSO | Trinity Staff- Merchan | |
+
+Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM-Document 540-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 45 of 62
+ESP Entry Sensory Paralegal ESP Entry Sensory Paralegal
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+ STOCKADE
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+ DRUG FARM
+
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|---------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 09/19/08 | 1210 | Edward Shelton -State of Fla (Invest) | V-15 | I/M's: [REDACTED], Ray (SA) and Arnold, Willie (B) | 1258 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1217 | Jeffrey Ivory- Pre- Trial Services | PBSO | en route to B-Dorm. | 1302 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1220 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB Teacher | PBSO | En route on the compound. | 1323 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1228 | Bernard Willis -Fern house | V1 | T-Dorm | 1321 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1255 | Story Crowles -Para-Legal | L1 | T-Special | 1410 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1302 | Pablo [REDACTED] - DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1600 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1411 | Alfred [REDACTED] - Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates. | 1625 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1427 | Robert Humes- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1655 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1515 | Wade, Jerry- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M: Bazan, [REDACTED] (SA09). | 1626 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1522 | Kristine Rosendahl- Attorney | L-3 | I/M: Gmyrek, Steven (T-37). | 1627 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1523 | John Riordan- Attorney | L-5 | I/M: Matos, Brandon (M-Dorm). | 1628 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1529 | Linsey Hanson- Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates. | 1629 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1533 | Story Crowles - Paralegal | L-1 | Elm Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special) | 1748 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1800 | Annette Allen Teacher | V-1 | Drug Farm | 1830 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1800 | Clark Gelfand T | V-2 | Drug Farm | 1930 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1800 | Morvin Glover | V-4 | Drug Farm | 1930 |
+| 09/19/08 | 1810 | Story Crowles | V | T-Special to see Epstein | 2130 |
+| 09/19/08 | 2000 | Danshy Rashad | V-9 | Drug Farm | 2100 |
+| 09/19/08 | 2000 | Shillip Stephen | VII | Drug Farm | 2100 |
+| 09/19/08 | 2000 | Generaly Yov | VI | Drug Farm | 2100 |
+| 09/20/08 | 0135 | Curtis Pitkiney | PBSO | Irvidy Shoff - Quebec | 2038 |
+| 09/20/08 | 0853 | Susan Wolkoff- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1811 |
+| 09/20/08 | 0911 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1734 |
+| 09/20/08 | 0911 | Linda Leary- United Deliverance | PBSO | [REDACTED]-Dorm. | 0930 |
+| 09/20/08 | 0947 | Sarah Ferrere- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1116 |
+| | | - - - - - Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1870 |
+
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 9/22/08 | 0714 | Tray Arthur | PSO | SAAP | 1555 |
+| 9/22/08 | 0725 | Gaitlen Bronstein | PSO | Drug Farm | 1120 |
+| 9/22/08 | 0740 | Gary Gibbons | PSO | Drug Farm | 1555 |
+| 9/22/08 | 0740 | Mathew West | PSO | Drug Farm | 1538 |
+| 9/22/08 | 0745 | Mr. Graves | PSO | Drug Farm | 1147 |
+| 9/22/08 | 0746 | Angel Wessinger | PSO | Drug Farm | 1710 |
+| 9/22/08 | 0747 | Hytower Cheveller | PSO | Drug Farm | 1710 |
+| 9/22/08 | 0748 | Ettington Barbara | PSO | Drug Farm | 1600 |
+| 9/22/08 | 0758 | Evelyn Green Wilford | PSO | Trinity Staff | 1117 |
+| 9/22/08 | 0615 | Elizabeth Green | PBSO | Trinity Staff | 1410 |
+| 9/22/08 | 0730 | John Habicht | PBSO | Trinity Staff | 1455 |
+| 09/22/08 | 0754 | Martina Jean-Baptiste - Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorm to see inmates. | 0848 |
+| 09/22/08 | 0755 | Susan Wilkoff- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1715 |
+| 09/22/08 | 0757 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB | PBSO | School Classroom. | 1137 |
+| 09/22/08 | 0851 | Timothy Justin- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1600 |
+| 09/22/08 | 0910 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1735 |
+| 09/22/08 | 1016 | Jason Cromey- Attorney | L-3 | I/M: Bass, Brian (T-37). | 1040 |
+| 09/22/08 | 1037- | Middlebrook- Alexxon | V-8 | en route to L/M-Dorm to check mouse traps. | 1119 |
+| 09/22/08 | 1158 | Darren Indyke- Attorney | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1405 |
+| 09/22/08 | 1159 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1415 |
+| 09/22/08 | 1203 | Cailtin Bronstein- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1605 |
+| 09/22/08 | 1210 | Jack Goldberger- Attorney | L-4 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1326 |
+| 09/22/08 | 1258 | Pablo [REDACTED] - DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1516 |
+| 09/22/08 | 1302 | Frances Flanagan-Earl SAAP | PBSO | M-Dorm to see inmates. | 1425 |
+| 09/22/08 | 1407 | Dennis Yeskey- PBC Animal Control | V-7 | I/M: [REDACTED], Crox (H-Dorm) | 1425 |
+| | | | " 12 | T/M: [REDACTED], Crox (H-Dorm). | |
+
+Case #: FA-0000000000000000 Document 54003 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2010 Page 47 of 82
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+ STOCKADE
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+ DRUG FARM
+
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 09/22/08 | 1415 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1700 |
+| 09/22/08 | 1415 | Sarah Körn- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1700 |
+| 09/22/08 | 1453 | Deborah Leporowski- Dr. | V-15 | I/M: Toomer, Darren (B-Dorm) in medical. | 1538 |
+| 09/22/08 | 1750 | KARA McKENNEY (cleary) | C#5 | Drug Farm | 1935 |
+| 09-22-08 | 1750 | ADGEL FOREZ (cleary) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1935 |
+| 09-22-08 | 1800 | DARREN JONDYKEE (Affected) | L#3 | T-Special mgmt- YM Epstein | 2016 |
+| 09-22-08 | 1820 | GEARA KUCHOWSKI (Affected) | L#4 | S-Doom YM Julius Knowl | 1905 |
+| 09-22-08 | 1830 | WARREN FERGUSON (cleary) | C#4 | - Church | 2005 |
+| 09-22-08 | 1845 | DORRE SMITH (visit) | VA8 | C-Doom | 2017 |
+| 09-22-08 | 1845 | RAMONA KNOGIRES (visit) | VH10 | C-Doom | 2017 |
+| 09-22-08 | 1847 | LORETTA HAWKINS (cleary) | C#6 | Church Services | 2005 |
+| 09-22-08 | 1847 | GRAY HAWKINS (cleary) | C#7 | Church Services | 2005 |
+| 09-22-08 | 1945 | JOHN LICKERT (visit) | VH15 | T-Doom meetings | 2115 |
+| 09-22-08 | 1955 | JILDA COLLINS (Always) | VH13 | C-Doom | 2126 |
+| 09-23-08 | 138 | EVELYN WILFORD (trinity) | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1057 |
+| 09-23-08 | 617 | ELIZABETH GREEN (trinity) | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1432 |
+| 09-23-08 | 702 | CSP UBER MOTOR POOL | PBSO | CENTRAL | 703 |
+| 09-23-08 | 721 | ARTHUR TROY SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1750 |
+| 09-23-08 | 724 | I-IM JUSTIN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1149 |
+| 09-23-08 | 726 | MS BRONSTEIN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1620 |
+| 09-23-08 | 738 | MR GIBSON SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1525 |
+| 09-23-08 | 741 | MR WEST SHAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1525 |
+| 09-23-08 | 743 | MS WESSENGER SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1759 |
+| 09-23-08 | 747 | MS HIGHTOWER SHAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1759 |
+| 09-23-08 | 750 | JOHN HABICHIT HITCHEN | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1521 |
+| | | JOHN HABICHIT HITCHEN | PBSO | Johnson Classroom | 1258 |
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+0 MAIN DETENTION CENTER M STOCKADE CI WEST COUNTY DETENTION LI DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | | | | |
+|-----------|---------|--------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
+| | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME/ORGANIZATION | PASS I | NAME OF STAFF/1NMATE VISITING TIME OUT |
+| 09-23-08 | 0751 | Wean Wilkoff- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. /-767) |
+| | 0818 | Dante Medina- Public Defender | PBSO | 0902 09-23-08 Various dorms to see inmates. |
+| 09-23-08 | 0824 | Kaydeon Simpson- Interviewer | V-14 | Admin area to see Ms. Futch. 0915 |
+| | 0854 | Marianne Rantala- Attorney | L-3 | 0941 09-23-08 I/M: Verno, Ian (T-39). |
+| 09-23-08 | 0903 | Patricia Edelman— DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. _afa. |
+| 09-23-08 | 0903 | Ella Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. t iic r |
+| 09-23-08 | 0933 | Tatiana Bertsch— Public Defender | PBSO | Helems, Richard (RA05) I/M. 1 30 |
+| 09-23-08 | 0933 | Brian Balaguera- Attorney | L-4 | I/M 's: Austin, Wade (RA05) and Mosley,M (M-Dorm) 1W. . |
+| 0923-08 | 0937 | Glen Wilcox- Interviewer | V-15 | Admin area to see Ms. Futch. 1043 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1000 | James Eisenberg- Attorney | L-2 | I/M: Lazaro (T-48). 1049 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1012 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. MS |
+| | 1058 | Maria Canino- Interviewer | V-3 | 1139 09-23-08 Admin area to see Ms. Futch. |
+| 09-23-08 | 1206 | Darren Indlke- Attorney | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). 1401 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1210 | Jaianna Seaborne- Ptiblic Defender | PBSO | en route to T-Dorm to see inmates. 1255 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1235 | Conrad Saddler- Pre-Trail Services | PBSO | A and D-Dorm to see inmates 1308 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1240 | D/S Maharrey- Staff DS | PBSO | G/H-Dorm to see inmates 1_7.37 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1259" | Marilyn Rodriquez- Interviewer | V-8 | Admin area to see Ms. Futch. 1358 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1300 | Milo Trkulja- Clergy Christ fellowship C-6 | | I 'M: Sessa, Taylor (H-Dorm). 1344 |
+| 09-21-08 | 1308 | Rev. Bannister- Chaplain | PBSO | various dorms on the compound. |
+| 09-23-08 | 1323 | Michael McLaughlin- ESS | PBSO | Central Control. |
+| 09-23-08 | 1409 | Sarah Korn- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. R ini |
+| 09-23-08 | 1409 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. ii-,- |
+| 09-23-08 | 1416 | Felicia Everett- Interviewer | V-5 | Admin area to 'see Ms. Futch |
+| 09-23-08 | 1423 | David Casals- Attorney | L-2 | I/M: Veron, Ian (T-Dorm). |
+| 09-23 '48 | 1431 | Kenneth Huxhold- SAAP | PBSO | II. S area to see inmates. 1:2 al |
+| nn nn nn | ,.rte | n. | | |
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|----------|
+| 09-23-08 | 1502 | Cynthia Haggins- Nurse | V-3 | En route to medical (Staff). | 2350 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1506 | Jack Goldberger- Attorney | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1145 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1515 | Jean Kesser- Interviewer | V-9 | Admin area to see Ms. Futch. | 1615 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1800 | MARCIA COOPER (Teacher) | V*8 | | 1455 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1111 | ANNETTE ALLEN (Teacher) | V*11 | | 1855 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1808 | DANNY DADYKE (Attorney) | L#3 | | 2055 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1808 | ROBERT CROTTON (Attorney) | L#2 | | 1956 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1820 | ANDREW BEANSTED (Counselor) | V#9 | C-Dorm (needed road right seat) | 1935 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1855 | AUGUSTIN LANGY | PBSU | SA-Dorm | 2008 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1855 | KENNETH ANGELS | PBSU | C-Dorm | 2006 |
+| 09-23-08 | 111 | FRANK PAULS | PBSU | C-Dorm | 2006 |
+| 09-23-08 | 111 | THOMAS LANTON | PBSU | SA-Dorm | 2008 |
+| 09-23-08 | 111 | CORBINE MARTHY | C#7 | RB-Dorm | 2006 |
+| 09-23-08 | 111 | MICHAEL NIXON | C#6 | RB-Dorm | 2006 |
+| 09-23-08 | 111 | KEVIN MCQUARE | C#3 | C-Dorm | 2006 |
+| 09-23-08 | 1855 | THOMAS WANITSKY | C#4 | SA-Dorm | 2008 |
+| 09-23-08 | 2000 | NELSON BURNHAGE (AIA) | V#11 | T-Dorm meeting | 210 |
+| 09-24-08 | 1:40 | EVELYN WILFORD (Trusty) | PBSU | (Que bee) | 1010 |
+| 09-24-08 | 4:00 | (Ait) Pinking (Trusty) | PBSU | (Que bee) | 1305 |
+| 09-24-08 | 6:40 | ELIZABETH GREENE (Trusty) | PBSU | (Que bee) | |
+| 09-24-08 | 7:02 | MURTON SEVILLA / SWANSON | V-2 | SWANSON | 7:30 |
+| 09-24-08 | 7:02 | PLAYTON BARNETT / SWANSON | V-3 | SWANSON | 1145 |
+| 09-24-08 | 7:02 | LITTLEYA WILLIAMS / SWANSON | PBSU | SWANSON | 1145 |
+| 09-24-08 | 7:02 | JESSICA BALLON / SWANSON | PBSU | SWANSON | 1145 |
+| 09-24-08 | 7:06 | MR. JUSTIN Drug farm | PBSU | Drug farm | |
+| | | | ADSU | (Que bee) | 11655 |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|------------|
+| 9-24-08 | 7:14 | Arthur Troy / Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 16:00 |
+| 9-24-08 | 7:39 | MS. Gde (man) / Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 16:00 |
+| 9-24-08 | 7:41 | Cerdeno Betzi / Swanson | PBSO | Drug Farm | 11:45 |
+| 9-24-08 | 7:41 | MS. Crilo / Swanson | PBSO | Drug Farm | 11:45 |
+| 9-24-08 | 7:43 | Mr. Graus / Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 11:30 |
+| 9-24-08 | 7:43 | Mr. West. / Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 11:30 |
+| 9-24-08 | 7:50 | Mr. Wesangal / Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 11:25 |
+| 9-24-08 | 8:20 | Mr. Gibson / Data | PBSO | Drug Farm | 11:50/1600 |
+| 9-24-08 | 06:30 | P. Taborda, Leonardo / PD | PBSO | SAOS-Arcucha / B-mandez / Peter | 09:25 |
+| 9-24-08 | 09:00 | Emiliar Elta | PBSO | Trinity | 11:40 |
+| 9-24-08 | 09:45 | Bradly Clafferd / PD | PBSO | S-Dorm | 10:27 |
+| 9-24-08 | 10:20 | O'Connell, Thomas / Atty | L-1 | Malksa Murth - C-dorm | 11:00 |
+| 9-24-08 | 11:45 | Newby - Trinity | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 11:45 |
+| 9-24-08 | 11:58 | Public Defender Sheeman | PBSO | S-Dorm | 12:53 |
+| 9-24-08 | 11:58 | Public Defender Bertman | PBSO | S-Dorm | 12:53 |
+| 9-24-08 | 12:05 | Darren Fridgke / Atty | L-1 | Epstein, Jeffrey - 75m | 15:33 |
+| 9-24-08 | 12:07 | Data Gibson | PBSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 9-24-08 | 12:25 | Jeffrey Frany Judicial Cat | PBSO | RB | 12:33 |
+| 9-24-08 | 12:45 | Paplo Gonzalez (DAF) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 11:05 |
+| 9-24-08 | | Valencia, N | PBSO | SADR Q-Donald | 15:10 |
+| 9-24-08 | 14:05 | Keith Hernandez - Atty | L-2 | Johnson, Darin - A/R | 12:25 |
+| 9-24-08 | 14:05 | Jessica Wally DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm | 11:56 |
+| 9-24-08 | 14:20 | Denise Penaranda | V-2 | Consvelo | 13:08 |
+| 9-24-08 | 14:25 | Robert Humes | PBSO | Drug Farm | 11:56 |
+| 9-24-08 | 14:30 | R. J. ... | | | |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|----------|
+| 9:25:08 | 7:55 | Annette Allen Teacher | V-M | JK | 2001 |
+| 9:25:08 | 18:00 | Stephen Alexander | V-III | T-Special to I/M Extein J. | 1902 |
+| 9:25:08 | 18:00 | Jack Gold Berger | L-3 | Doctor T Special to I/M Extein J. | 1920 |
+| 9:25:08 | 18:15 | Joseph Maryuma | PBSD | Various Dorms: L and SA | 1901 |
+| 9:25:08 | 18:15 | Andrew Bernstein | V-1 | (Credit Counseling) T-Dorm | 1924 |
+| 9:25:08 | 18:25 | Erick Maillard | V-15 | Balm Bch County Courts to Intelp Boards | 1840 |
+| 9:25:08 | 18:25 | Timothy Foley | V-15 | AA to SA Dorm Boards | 2022 |
+| 9:25:08 | 19:17 | Story Cowles- | L-4 | Paralyzed to T-special Extein | 2022 |
+| 9:25:08 | 20:02 | Christopher Henry | VIII | T-Dorm | 2055 |
+| 9:26:08 | 01:25 | Curtis Pinckrey (Trinity) | PBSD | Kitchen (Trinity Staff) | H 06 |
+| 9:26:08 | 05:01 | Susan Wilkoff | PBSD | Drug Farm | 07:00 |
+| 9:26:08 | 06:26 | Debbie King | PBSD | Drug Farm | |
+| 9:26:08 | 06:39 | Elizabeth Green (Trinity) | PBSD | Kitchen | 1926 |
+| 9:26:08 | 07:00 | Susan Wilkoff | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1040 |
+| 9:26:08 | 7:29 | Cartlin Bronstein/DAF | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1600 |
+| 9:26:08 | 07:35 | Gary Gibson/SAAP | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1516 |
+| 9:26:08 | 07:36 | Mr. Nest/DAF | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1514 |
+| 9:26:08 | 07:44 | Angeliki Neissenger/DAF | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1645 |
+| 9:26:08 | 08:06 | Pat. Edelman / DAF | PBSD | DAF Drug Farm | 1540 |
+| 09/26/08 | 08:43 | John Hurold (Trinity) | PBSD | Q-Building | 1513 |
+| 09:26:08 | 10:15 | Joann Graham/Johans Gerena | V-7 | S-Dorm / Andre, Andrew | 11:05 |
+| 9:26:08 | 10:03 | Story Crowks | U3 | T-Special | 13:30 |
+| 9:26:08 | 10:04 | Miramke Ostring | PBSD | Q-Building | 1912 |
+| 9-26-08 | 12:48 | Maya De Gaspe (Prode) | PBSD | C-Dorm / | 1452 |
+| 9-26-08 | 13:10 | Jay Paster | V-7 | Drug Farm | 1438 |
+| 9-26-08 | 13:10 | Mary Mann / Malanous | Inc | A / D | |
+
+ CERTIFICATION OF PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF EXERCISE EXERCISE ON FEB 25 2008 PAGE 32 OF 62
+ E.S.P.
+ EXERCISE EXERCISE
+ PARAGRAPH
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|----------|
+| 9-26-08 | 13:10 | Michael Hershorn | V-9 | Drug Farm | 1455 |
+| 9-26-08 | 13:10 | Monica Escaber | V-4 | Drug Farm | 1455 |
+| 9-26-08 | 13:13 | Michael Huxhold (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 9-26-08 | 13:18 | Jefferey Ivory (Pre-Trial) | PBSO | SA and R.B. Dorm | 13:57 |
+| 9-26-08 | 13:23 | Avra Sheppard ORR | V-3 | U-Building (Blue don German, Dark Town) | 13:52 |
+| 9-26-08 | 13:39 | Daniel Destefno | V-6 | Drug Farm | 1455 |
+| 9-26-08 | 1:00 | Albert Shuman | PBSO | School | 1635 |
+| 9-26-08 | 1:20 | Martin Deptiste | PBSO | D-R-S Dorm | 1700 |
+| 9-26-08 | 1:00 | Harry Green | PBSO | Steckures to RA Dorm | 1736 |
+| 9-26-08 | 1:00 | Marvin Glover | V-7 | TO Drug Farm | 1950 |
+| 9-26-08 | 1:00 | Annette Allen | V-12 | TO Drug Farm | 1950 |
+| 9-26-08 | 1:10 | Story Crowler | V-3 | TO T Special (Paraleged) | 2055 |
+| 9-26-08 | 2:00 | Hermit Karl | V-16 | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 9-26-08 | 2:00 | Thomas Foreni | VA | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 9-26-08 | 2:00 | Kevin Thomas | V-11 | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 9-26-08 | 2:00 | Michael Jerome | V-13 | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 9-26-08 | 2:00 | Lexander Torres | V-18 | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 9-26-08 | 2:00 | Miguel Alberto | V-7 | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 9-26-08 | 2:00 | Kashyo Cornelius | V-18 | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 9-26-08 | 2:00 | GENNAN ZHURAVL | V-9 | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 9-26-08 | 2:00 | Phillip Watson | V-8 | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 9-26-08 | 2:00 | ANTONIO LAMAR | V-5 | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 9-26-08 | 2:00 | Roger LEE ROGER | V-16 | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 9-26-08 | 2:00 | DAVID ANNE BRANDA | V-7 | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 9-26-08 | 2:00 | JOSEPH GONZALEZ | V-15 | Drug Farm | 2105 |
+| 9-26-08 | 2:00 | Anne Miller | V-2 | Mallaradi In N-Mon | 2202 |
+
+
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG
+"CENTRAL CONTROL "**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 9/21/08 | 0135 | Gertis Pintney | PBSO | Trinity Staff - Quebee | 1038 |
+| 9/27/08 | 0730 | Jessica Wall | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1122 |
+| 09/27/08 | 0903 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1727 |
+| 09/27/08 | 0949 | Story Crowles- Paralegal | PBSO | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1104 |
+| 09/27/08 | 0958 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1849 |
+| 09/27/08 | 1336 | Story Crowles- paralegal | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1555 |
+| 09/27/08 | 1515 | Michael Arnesen- State of FL DOC-Pride | V-7 | en route to Q-Bldg. | 1720 |
+| 09/27/08 | 1515 | Gregg Likes- State of FL DOC -Pride | V-11 | en route to Q-Bldg. | 1720 |
+| 09/27/08 | 1515 | Raul Pozos- State of FL DOC-Pride | V-13 | en route to Q-Bldg. | 1720 |
+| 9/27/08 | 1820 | Prince Arafet | V-13 | men to men | 205 |
+| 9/27/08 | 1820 | Michelle Carter | V-11 | men to men | 1941 |
+| 9/27/08 | 1820 | George McCadden | V-7 | men to men | 205 |
+| 9/27/08 | 1830 | Story Crowles - | L-3 | Paralegal to TS Special | 2050 |
+| 9/28/08 | 137 | EVELYN WILFORD - TRINITY | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 0944 |
+| 9/28/08 | 736 | PATRICIA EREMAN - SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1421 |
+| 09-28-08 | 0810 | Angeliki Weissinger- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1037 |
+| 09-28-08 | 0908 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1944 |
+| 09-28-08 | 0946 | Story Crowles- Paralegal | L-5 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1154 |
+| 09-28-08 | 0957 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1900 |
+| 09-28-08 | 1024 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1353 |
+| 09-28-08 | 1211 | Story Crowles- Paralegal | L-5 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1525 |
+| 09-28-08 | 1352 | Ingrid Abello- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M: Roman, Billy (T-48). | 1445 |
+| 09-28-08 | 1352 | Debra Consoli- Trinity Staff | PBSO | En route to gate #13. | 1353 |
+| 09-28-08 | 1451 | Nan Foley- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M's: Lampley (L-Dorm) and Gross (D-Dorm). | 1605 |
+| 09-28-08 | 1452 | Nicole Sauvola- Attorney | L-3 | I/M: Albury, Jarrett (A-Dorm). | 1535 |
+| 09-28-08 | 1765 | Nicole Sauvola- Attorney | L-2 | I/M: Albury, Jarrett (A-Dorm). | |
+
+ Case 9:08-cv-00119-KAM Document 540-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 54 of 62
+ Entry Sensory Paragraph WP:Programs
+
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG
+" CENTRAL CONTROL. "**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+ STOCKADE
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+ DRUG FARM
+
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 09-29-08 | 1347 | Cynthia Pearson - CSP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1408 |
+| 09-29-08 | 1358 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | |
+| 09-29-08 | 1420 | Robert Humes- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1655 |
+| 09-29-08 | 1423 | Jeff [REDACTED] - ESS | PBSO | on the compound. | 1657 |
+| 09-29-08 | 1423 | Michael McLaughlin- ESS | PBSO | on the compound. | 1513 |
+| 9-29-08 | 1615 | James Laissaug (Atlanta) | LH4 | R.B. Walters State Cs | 1513 |
+| 9-29-08 | 1758 | Thomas Lawlorn (Atlanta) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1635 |
+| 9-29-08 | 111 | Angel Parade | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1940 |
+| 9-29-08 | 111 | Michael Allenod | CH1 | Drug Farm | 1940 |
+| 9-29-08 | 1830 | Steven Cowles (Panakagad) | LH4 | T-Specials | 1940 |
+| 9-29-08 | 1850 | Sally Sueeney (Ala) | VA1 | T-Specials | 2040 |
+| 9-29-08 | 1940 | Leofred T Craspery (Atlanta) | VA1 | T-Dorm | 2046 |
+| 9-29-08 | 1955 | Adam Bianchery (A.A.) | VA6 | T-Dorm | 2115 |
+| 9-29-08 | 1955 | John Lickens (A.A.) | VL10 | T-Dorm | 2106 |
+| 9-29-08 | 2000 | Hitlar Collies (Atlanta) | VL2 | T-Dorm | 2115 |
+| 9-30-08 | 147 | EVELYN WILFORD (TRIVITY) | PBSO | KITCHEN | 2115 |
+| 9-30-08 | 634 | ELIZABETH GREEN (TRIVITY) | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1120 |
+| 9-30-08 | 725 | TIMOTHY JUSTIN SHAP | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1442 |
+| 9-30-08 | 731 | MS BROUSTIEN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1644 |
+| 9-30-08 | 735 | ARITHUR KROY SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1644 |
+| 9-30-08 | 735 | MICHAEL WEST SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1622 |
+| 9-30-08 | 741 | PATRICIA EDELNAN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1528 |
+| 9-30-08 | 746 | YARY GIBSON SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1604 |
+| 9-30-08 | 752 | AWGELA WESSENGER SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1566 |
+| 9-30-08 | 0754 | Chevelle Hytower SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1707 |
+| 9-30-08 | 0756 | Tam Radcast SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1707 |
+
+ESP
+Extra Session
+Paralegal
+Ingelsagelink.com
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS**
+
+**OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG**
+
+**"CENTRAL CONTROL"**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|--------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|----------|
+| 9-29-08 | 1:48 | Ms. Wilford / Trinity | PB50 | Q-Bec | 1100 |
+| 9-29-08 | 6:13 | Ms. Green / Trinity | PB50 | Q-Bec | 1438 |
+| 9-29-08 | 7:08 | T. Justin / SAAP | PB50 | Drug ed | 1645 |
+| 9-29-08 | 7:16 | A. Troy | PB50 | Drug ed | 1122 |
+| 9-29-08 | 7:20 | Mr. Habicht / Trinity | PB50 | Q-Bec | 1534 |
+| 9-29-08 | 7:28 | Ms. Bronstein | PB50 | Drug ed | 1126 |
+| 9-29-08 | 7:39 | Mr. A-Frot Gary Gubant | PB50 | Drug ed | 1548 |
+| 9-29-08 | 7:40 | Ms. P. Edelman | PB50 | Drug ed | 1620 |
+| 9-29-08 | 7:48 | Mr. West | PB50 | Drug ed | 1552 |
+| 9-29-08 | 7:49 | Ms. Wilkoff | PB50 | Drug ed | 1707 |
+| 9-29-08 | 0753 | Chevelle Hyttower- SAAP | PB50 | Drug Farm area. | 1841 |
+| 09-29-08 | 0800 | Angeliki Weissinger- SAAP | PB50 | Drug Farm area. | 1707 |
+| 09-29-08 | 0805 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB | PB50 | Schööl Classroom. | 1349 |
+| 09-29-08 | 0846 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PB50 | Q-Bldg. | 1701 |
+| 09-29-08 | 1012 | Evenlym Pennington- Attorney | L-10 | I/M: Marfill (RA18) and Baker (T-39). | 1210 |
+| 09-29-08 | 1114 | Timothy Neff- PBCSB | PB50 | School Classroom. | 1349 |
+| 09-29-08 | 0916 | Terry Graves- SAAP | PB50 | Drug Farm area | 1123 |
+| 09-29-08 | 0940 | Michael McLaughin-ESS | PB50 | On the compound | 1130 |
+| 09-29-08 | 1148 | Caitlin Bronstein- SAAP | PB50 | Drug Farm area. | 1610 |
+| 09-29-08 | 1150 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-2 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1402 |
+| 09-29-08 | 1200 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PB50 | Q-Bldg. | 1830 |
+| 09-29-08 | 1203 | Arthur Troy- SAAP | PB50 | Drug Farm area. | 1610 |
+| 09-29-08 | 1249 | ATTORNEY SANDIGAN [REDACTED] | L 1 | I/M: Quarrell, Michael (D-Dorm). | 1331 |
+| 09-29-08 | 1320 | Jack Goldberger- Attorney | L-4 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1400 |
+| 09-29-08 | 1324 | Carl Stevens- Process Server | V-10 | I/M: epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1330 |
+
+
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 09-30-08 | 0814 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1540 |
+| 09-30-08 | 0836 | [REDACTED] Varju- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1206 |
+| 09-30-08 | 0900 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1710 |
+| 09-30-08 | 0902 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1405 |
+| 09-30-08 | 0934 | Ms. Futch- Section Mang. | PBSO | en route to school classroom. | 1007 |
+| 09-30-08 | iii25 | Jeff [REDACTED]- ESS | PBSO | en route to various dorms. | 1224 |
+| 09-30-08 | 1126 | Dena Paquette- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1530 |
+| 09-30-08 | 1126 | [REDACTED] Slone- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1530 |
+| 09-30-08 | 1203 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-2- | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1358 |
+| 09-30-08 | 1214 | [REDACTED] Nelson- Max [REDACTED] Assoc. | PBSO | Adult Custody Office and school classroom. | 1405 |
+| 09-30-08 | 1226 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB Teacher | PBSO | School classroom. | 1416 |
+| 09-30-08 | 1246 | Ray Forney- Trinity Staff | V-9 | Q-Bldg. | 1530 |
+| 09-30-08 | 1256 | James Clark- Ecolab | V-10 | en route to Laundry via gate #16 Booking. | 1326 |
+| 09-30-08 | 1403 | Rev. Bannister- Chaplain | PBSO | En route to the compound. | 1734 |
+| 09-30-08 | 1409 | Robert Humes- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1706 |
+| 09-30-08 | 1420 | Sarah Korn DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1702 |
+| 09-30-08 | 1420 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1702 |
+| 09-30-08 | 1429 | Michael Mclaughlin- ESS | PBSO | En route on the compound. | 1516 |
+| 09-30-08 | 1526 | Cathy Igo- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M: Imperato, Michael (D-Dorm). | 1541 |
+| 09-30-08 | 1530 | Cynthia Huggins- Nurse | V-9 | Medical. | 2355 |
+| 9-30-08 | 1544 | ANNOLD PROSPERI- Paralegal | L-1 | I/M: EPSTEIN, Jeffrey (T-Special) | 1710 |
+| 9-30-08 | 1755 | Jack Cooldbenzen (Athenoy) | L-1 | T-Special YM Epstein J. | 1432 |
+| 9-30-08 | 1758 | Robert Crafton (Athenoy) | L-10 | T-Special YM Epstein J. | 1945 |
+| 9-30-08 | 1800 | Andrew Bennett (Crafton) | V-1 | Crafton S. Mgr. | 1934 |
+| 9-30-08 | 1842 | Story Cowles (Crafton) | L-5 | T-Special YM BoShert | 2110 |
+
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 10-9-08 | 1411 | Jessica Walker | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1658 |
+| 10-9-08 | 1411 | Sarah Korn | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1658 |
+| 10-9-08 | 1451 | Jack Goldberger | L-1 | T-Special | 1650 |
+| 10-9-08 | 1535 | Story Cowles | L-2 | T-Special | 1734 |
+| 10/9/08 | 1814 | ANDREW M. BRONSTEIN | V-1 | T-Dorm | 1942 |
+| 10/9/08 | 1905 | Abell Thorse | V-2 | Story Alpha | 1910 |
+| 10/9/08 | 1855 | CHERIS PATTON S. HOWEY | V-2 | T-Dorm | 219 |
+| 10/10/08 | 0130 | Claritia Pinknay / Trinity | PBSO | Quebec | 1220 |
+| 10/10/08 | 0183 | Elizabeth Dreer / Trinity | PBSO | Quebec | 1339 |
+| 10/10/08 | 0708 | Timothy Justin / SAAP | PBSO | STK | 1114 |
+| 10/10/08 | 0720 | Dattun Tay / SAAP | PBSO | STK | 1114 |
+| 10/10/08 | 0727 | PATRICIA Cadelman / SAAP | PBSO | STK | 1600 |
+| 10/10/08 | 0734 | Dallin Bronstein / SAAP | PBSO | STK | 1114 |
+| 10/10/08 | 0734 | Michael West / SAAP | PBSO | STK | 1523 |
+| 10/10/08 | 0740 | Gary Gibson / SAAP | PBSO | STK | 1523 |
+| 10/10/08 | 0745 | Susan WILKOFF / SAAP | PBSO | STK | 1114 |
+| 10-10-08 | 0758 | Angeliki Weissinger-SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm Area | 1114 |
+| 10-10-08 | 0800 | Jay Badger- PBCSB | PBSO | School Classroom | 1230 |
+| 10-10-08 | 0909 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1230 |
+| 10-10-08 | 0938 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1027 |
+| 10-10-08 | 0943 | Brian Balaguera- Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates. | 1110 |
+| 10-10-08 | 0954 | Charles Durkee- Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Finzi, Dan (K-Dorm). | 1045 |
+| 10-10-08 | 0912 | Pablo [REDACTED]- DAF | PBSO | En route to Ronnie [REDACTED] office & Drug Farm 1013 | |
+| 10-10-08 | 1202 | Brian Balaguera- Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates. | 1326 |
+| 10-10-08 | 1209 | Jeffrey Ivory- Pre-Trial Services | PBSO | I/M: Jukich, Michael (L-Dorm). | 1235 |
+
+Case 9:08-cv-80118-KAM- Document 540-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 58 of 62
+ESP Entry Sensor Paralegal Input Agency.com
+
+*CENTRAL CONTROL*
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+ STOCKADE
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+ DRUG FARM
+
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 10-11-08 | 0923 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1835 |
+| 10-11-08 | 0925 | T. ██████ CSP | PBSO | En route on the compound. | 0940 |
+| 10-11-08 | 1014 | Melanie Khoury- Stafe of FL. Criminal | V-11 | I/M's: Goodman (L-Dorm); Mansfield (B-Dorm) | 1053 |
+| 10-11-08 | 1144 | S; ██████ - Deputy | PBSO | En route to Sgt. Office. | 1158 |
+| 10-11-08 | 1329 | Agent ██████ - Deputy | PBSO | En route Adult Cust Office. | 1400 |
+| 10-11-08 | 1337 | Conrad Saddler- Pre-Trial Services | PBSO | I/M's: Speckman/ Alford/ Baptiste. | 1404 |
+| 10-11-08 | 1404 | Agent Castillo- Deputy | PBSO | En route to Adult Cust Office. | 1434 |
+| 10-11-08 | 1404 | D/S D. Hawkins- Deputy | PBSO | En route to Adult Cust Office. | 1434 |
+| 10-11-08 | 1807 | Michele Carter (Men 2 Men) | V-11 | Drug Farm | 1921 |
+| 10-11-08 | 1807 | George McGadden (Men 2 Men) | V-12 | Drug Farm | 2051 |
+| 10-11-08 | 1810 | Pringe Arafat (Men 2 Men) | V-13 | Drug Farm | 2051 |
+| 10-12-08 | 1830 | Evelyn Wood/ Trinity | PBSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 10-12-08 | 1728 | Anthon Troy / Drug Farm | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1020 |
+| 10-12-08 | 0750 | Patricia Edelman- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1134 |
+| 10-12-08 | 0907 | Stephen Alexander- Psych Dr. | V-12 | Drug Farm area. | 0758 |
+| 10-12-08 | 0916 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special) | 1144 |
+| 10-12-08 | 0916 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1830 |
+| 10-12-08 | 0935 | ██████ Pagano- Paralegal | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1830 |
+| 10-12-08 | 0944 | Timothy Justin- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1144 |
+| 10-12-08 | 1416 | Martina Jean-Baptiste- Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates. | 1401 |
+| 10-12-08 | 1516 | D/S ██████ - Deputy | PBSO | Sgt. Office. | 1640 |
+| 10-12-08 | 1536 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-2 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1545 |
+| 10-12-08 | 1542 | CSP Gray- CSP | PBSO | Sgt. Office | 1850 |
+| 10-12-08 | 1544 | D/S Williams- Deputy | PBSO | Sgt. Office | 1542 |
+| 10-12-08 | 1755 | Adam A. Branchini (AA) | V-1 | Sgt. Office | 1555 |
+| 11-13-08 | 123 | | | T Dorm | 1103 |
+
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|---------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 10/13/08 | 734 | GARY EBSON SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1611 |
+| 10/13/08 | 737 | PATRICIA EDELMAN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 0816 |
+| 10/13/08 | 0153 | TERRY GRAWES SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1105 |
+| 10/13/08 | 0803 | Jay Badgett - PBCSB | PBSO | School Classroom | 1205 |
+| 10-13-08 | 0816 | Angeliki Weissinger- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1741 |
+| 10-13-08 | 0820 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q- Bldg. | 1444 |
+| 10-13-08 | 0822 | Patricia Edelman- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 12:15 |
+| 10-13-08 | 0133 | Evelyn Wilford- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1017 |
+| 10-13-08 | 0920 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1729 |
+| 10-13-08 | 1149 | [REDACTED] Fichera- Psych Dr. | V-14 | I/M: Gleason, [REDACTED] (T-37) | 1301 |
+| 10-13-08 | 1200 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1439 |
+| 10-13-08 | 12:13 | Mirahna Osting | PBSO | Q BLDG TRINITY EMPLOYEE | 1812 |
+| 10-13-08 | 1220 | William Paul- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M: Adderly, Shebly (RA-Dorm). | 1327 |
+| 10-13-08 | 1300 | Juan Mercado- Pro Fitness | PBSO | Locker room area/ Gym. | 1352 |
+| 10-13-08 | 1320 | Genevieve [REDACTED] - Attorney | L-2 | I/M's: Reaves; Herman (D-Dorm); Thelemaque (B) | 1330 |
+| 10-13-08 | 1351 | Calixte Viau- Xray Tech | V-11 | Medical vis gate #16. | 1415 |
+| 10-13-08 | 1357 | Patricia Edelman- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1610 |
+| 10-13-08 | 1725 | JAN Edgary (Cheng) | PBSO | F- Dam Lenny Mantoz | 1800 |
+| 10-13-08 | 1745 | Margaret Calez (Cheng) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1937 |
+| 10-13-08 | 1746 | Thomas Hawlon (Cheng) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 2951 |
+| 10-13-08 | 1806 | Stephen Alexander (Doc) | V#10 | T-Special 1/M Epstein J. | 1950 |
+| 10-13-08 | 1900 | Sally Successy (N.A.) | V#11 | Drug Farm | 2008 |
+| 10-13-08 | 1900 | KATHLEA KATHLEA Siras (N.A.) | V#12 | Drug Farm | 2008 |
+| 10-13-08 | 1900 | Jay Rease Mandavelt | V#1 | Chancel | 2005 |
+| 10-13-08 | 1900 | Stephy Cowles (Ruston) | V#1 | T-Special R.P.Stone | 2045 |
+
+
+
+14
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 10/01/08 | 105 | MARLON MORENO - SEVILLA (SWANNIN) | V2 | CANTEEN | 1127 |
+| 10/01/08 | 1150 | JACK A. REISCHMAN | L1 | VARIOUS | 1258 |
+| 10/01/08 | 120 | JEFF IVORY (PRE-TRIAL) | PBJO | RA-DORM | 1229 |
+| 10/01/08 | 1226 | STORY COWLES (PARA-LEGAL) | L2 | T-SPECIAL (F)/M: EPSTON, J. | 1408 |
+| 10/01/08 | 1253 | SOVERN VARIOUS (SAAP) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1612 |
+| 10/01/08 | 1254 | PABLO GONZALEZ (DAF) | PBJO | T-DORM | 1619 |
+| 10/01/08 | 1411 | ROBERT HUMES (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1687 |
+| 10/01/08 | 1424 | JESSICA WALLY (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1658 |
+| 10/01/08 | 1444 | SARAH KORN (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1658 |
+| 10/11/08 | 1466 | KOLLIN FRELING | L1 | T-DORM | 1658 |
+| 10/11/08 | 1765 | MARION SEVILLA | PBSO | CANTEEN | 1644 |
+| 10/11/08 | 1765 | STEPHANIE FOUNDER | V-2 | CANTEEN | 1937 |
+| 10/11/08 | 1745 | REV. BARNASTEN | PBSO | CANTEEN | 1938 |
+| 10/11/08 | 1755 | JEWARTHAN D. KAYER (TRACKER) | V-2 | DRUG FARM | 1907 |
+| 10/11/08 | 1800 | STENKE ANDERSON COPE, VOLUNTEER | PBSO | T-K (O.K. GT TRACKER) | 1938 |
+| 10/11/08 | 1803 | DR STEPHAN ACKHAM | V-1 | DRUG FARM | 1938 |
+| 10/11/08 | 1827 | STORY COWLES | V-1 | T-SPEC | 1928 |
+| 10/11/08 | 1850 | STENKE EVERETT | V-4 | T-SPEC | 2157 |
+| 10/11/08 | 1850 | JAMES DRECOATCH ON | V-1 | T-DORM | 2509 |
+| 10/11/08 | 1857 | MARTHA SWANNER | V-1 | T-DORM | 2009 |
+| 10/11/08 | 1857 | KRISTINE COHT | V-7 | C-DORM | 2005 |
+| 10/11/08 | 1924 | JAMES SWANNER | V-8 | C-DORM | 2005 |
+| 10/11/08 | 1958 | ROBERT HARPER (MA) | PBJO | C-DORM | 2102 |
+| 10/21/08 | 0115 | Evelyn Wilford | V-3 | DRUG FARM | 2108 |
+| 10/21/08 | 0435 | Carles Pinkney | PBSO | TRAITY STAFF - Quebee | |
+| 10/21/08 | 0425 | Marion Sevilla | PBSO | TRAITY STAFF - Quebee | |
+
+
+
+89 B792 -
+8009
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-------------------------------|------|------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 10-2-08 | 1505 | COWLES, STORY | V-11 | T-Dorm (Credit Card Mgmt) | 1433 |
+| 10-2-08 | 1559 | Malik Hasan (Public Detender) | PD | Inmate Izzord, Cleyland / McEhone Murray | 1433 |
+| 10-2-08 | 1603 | G Scott Renney (PD) | PD | Inmate Ruar [REDACTED], Michael (Dorm) | 1658 |
+| 10-2-08 | 1810 | Andrew M. Bernstein | V-11 | T-Dorm (Credit Card Mgmt) | 1644 |
+| 10/21/08 | 1812 | MARVIN CLOVER | V-12 | DRUG FARM | 1437 |
+| 10/21/08 | 1812 | ANDREW ALLAN | V-13 | DRUG FARM | 2005 |
+| 10/21/08 | 1813 | DANISTRAKEN ALFREDSON | V-2 | T-SAKE | 2005 |
+| 10/21/08 | 1832 | BRIAN BALACURRA AD | PBSD | T-D-R Dorm's | 1930 |
+| | 1900 | Brian Edington | V-1 | AA - Sions Alpha | 1842 |
+| | 1900 | Richard Wolff | V-3 | AA - Sions Alpha | 2005 |
+| 10/21/08 | 1949 | COWLES, STORY | L-1 | T-DARE | 2005 |
+| 10/21/08 | 1950 | JOHNNY PROKORN | V-4 | T-DARE | 1994 |
+| 10/21/08 | 1950 | ERIC YORLAND | V-5 | T-DARE | 2005 |
+| 10/3/09 | 0130 | Curtis Pinkman | PBSD | T-DARE | 2005 |
+| 10/3/09 | 0615 | ELIZABETH GREEN | PBSD | Trinity Star-F Quebee | 1520 |
+| 10/3/09 | 0225 | Michael F. Pago | V-11 | Trinity Star-F Quebee | |
+| 10/3/08 | 0730 | Carol Pronstein | PBSD | Auditor - Administration | 815 |
+| 10/3/08 | 0733 | Roy Arthur | PBSD | SAAT | 1612 |
+| 10/3/08 | 0740 | Barbara Settner | PBSD | Sung Farm | 1615 |
+| 10-3-08 | 854 | CHUVILLE Hytocoll | PBSD | Drug Farm | |
+| 10-3-08 | 854 | Angelica Wissinger | PBSD | Drug Farm | |
+| 10-3-08 | 855 | Gary Gibson | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1638 |
+| 10-3-08 | 810 | Jay Badger | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1524 |
+| 10-3-08 | 810 | Sokan Willoff | PBSD | Class 100M | 1220 |
+| 10-3-08 | 855 | Patricia Hewley | PBSD | Drug Farm | |
+| 10-3-08 | 935 | Richard D. .... | PBSD | Class 100M | |
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/EFTA02749323.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/EFTA02749323.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b703ab1fc0708a42e812a346f5efb9e7a4469e2a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/EFTA02749323.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,3489 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 62,
+ "chars": 214192,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 173.68,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_2_Picture_18.jpeg",
+ "_page_4_Picture_18.jpeg",
+ "_page_5_Picture_18.jpeg",
+ "_page_7_Picture_16.jpeg",
+ "_page_9_Picture_16.jpeg",
+ "_page_15_Picture_18.jpeg",
+ "_page_19_Picture_18.jpeg",
+ "_page_20_Picture_17.jpeg",
+ "_page_22_Picture_17.jpeg",
+ "_page_24_Picture_15.jpeg",
+ "_page_25_Picture_18.jpeg",
+ "_page_26_Picture_17.jpeg",
+ "_page_27_Picture_17.jpeg",
+ "_page_39_Picture_19.jpeg",
+ "_page_42_Picture_11.jpeg",
+ "_page_45_Picture_476.jpeg",
+ "_page_52_Picture_15.jpeg",
+ "_page_55_Picture_28.jpeg",
+ "_page_56_Picture_12.jpeg",
+ "_page_58_Picture_18.jpeg",
+ "_page_59_Picture_14.jpeg",
+ "_page_60_Picture_18.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "EXHIBIT I \nPart 2 of 3",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 193.392,
+ 194.715576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 429.69482421875,
+ 194.715576171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 429.69482421875,
+ 320.85406494140625
+ ],
+ [
+ 193.392,
+ 320.85406494140625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.74299999999997,
+ 20.229000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 544.578,
+ 20.229000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 544.578,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.74299999999997,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 246.999,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.148,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.148,
+ 70.495
+ ],
+ [
+ 246.999,
+ 70.495
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 251.214,
+ 19.003
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.206,
+ 19.003
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.206,
+ 73.56
+ ],
+ [
+ 251.214,
+ 73.56
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 240.25499999999997,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.09,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.09,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 240.25499999999997,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 78.464
+ ],
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 78.464
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 240.25499999999997,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.09,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.09,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 240.25499999999997,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 243.62699999999998,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 79.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 243.62699999999998,
+ 79.69
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 78.464
+ ],
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 78.464
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 233.51100000000002,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 523.503,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 523.503,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 233.51100000000002,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 233.51100000000002,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 524.346,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 524.346,
+ 77.851
+ ],
+ [
+ 233.51100000000002,
+ 77.851
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.404,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.404,
+ 78.464
+ ],
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 78.464
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.09,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.09,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.52,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 248.68499999999997,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 241.09799999999998,
+ 22.067999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.933,
+ 22.067999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.933,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 241.09799999999998,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 251.214,
+ 18.39
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.206,
+ 18.39
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.206,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 251.214,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 72.947
+ ],
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 72.947
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 229.29600000000002,
+ 25.133
+ ],
+ [
+ 520.131,
+ 25.133
+ ],
+ [
+ 520.131,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 229.29600000000002,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.88300000000004,
+ 28.197999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 28.197999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 71.721
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.88300000000004,
+ 71.721
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 240.25499999999997,
+ 25.133
+ ],
+ [
+ 530.247,
+ 25.133
+ ],
+ [
+ 530.247,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 240.25499999999997,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 68.656
+ ],
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 68.656
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 251.214,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 540.3629999999999,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 540.3629999999999,
+ 68.656
+ ],
+ [
+ 251.214,
+ 68.656
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.619,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.619,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 243.62699999999998,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.933,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.933,
+ 68.656
+ ],
+ [
+ 243.62699999999998,
+ 68.656
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 240.25499999999997,
+ 27.585
+ ],
+ [
+ 530.247,
+ 27.585
+ ],
+ [
+ 530.247,
+ 70.495
+ ],
+ [
+ 240.25499999999997,
+ 70.495
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 31,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 240.25499999999997,
+ 22.067999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.404,
+ 22.067999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.404,
+ 67.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 240.25499999999997,
+ 67.42999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE \nDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS \nOFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 32,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 23.69970703125
+ ],
+ [
+ 530.6438598632812,
+ 23.69970703125
+ ],
+ [
+ 530.6438598632812,
+ 67.7091064453125
+ ],
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 67.7091064453125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 33,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 525.189,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 525.189,
+ 66.204
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 66.204
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 34,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 233.51100000000002,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 523.503,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 523.503,
+ 69.269
+ ],
+ [
+ 233.51100000000002,
+ 69.269
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 35,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 252.89999999999998,
+ 19.003
+ ],
+ [
+ 542.8919999999999,
+ 19.003
+ ],
+ [
+ 542.8919999999999,
+ 67.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 252.89999999999998,
+ 67.42999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 36,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 246.156,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.148,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.148,
+ 69.269
+ ],
+ [
+ 246.156,
+ 69.269
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \" CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 37,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 252.89999999999998,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 542.8919999999999,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 542.8919999999999,
+ 80.91600000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 252.89999999999998,
+ 80.91600000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \" CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 38,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 241.94099999999997,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.09,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.09,
+ 77.851
+ ],
+ [
+ 241.94099999999997,
+ 77.851
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 39,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.88300000000004,
+ 20.229000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 20.229000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 66.81700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.88300000000004,
+ 66.81700000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 40,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 233.51100000000002,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 522.66,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 522.66,
+ 64.365
+ ],
+ [
+ 233.51100000000002,
+ 64.365
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE \nDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS \nOFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 41,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 19.003
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 19.003
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 62.525999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 62.525999999999996
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 42,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 6.130000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.09,
+ 6.130000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.09,
+ 73.56
+ ],
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 73.56
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 43,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 231.82500000000002,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 520.974,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 520.974,
+ 70.495
+ ],
+ [
+ 231.82500000000002,
+ 70.495
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \" CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 44,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 240.25499999999997,
+ 20.229000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.404,
+ 20.229000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.404,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 240.25499999999997,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 45,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 231.82500000000002,
+ 17.164
+ ],
+ [
+ 520.974,
+ 17.164
+ ],
+ [
+ 520.974,
+ 63.751999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 231.82500000000002,
+ 63.751999999999995
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG CENTRAL CONTROL",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 46,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 230.982,
+ 17.164
+ ],
+ [
+ 520.974,
+ 17.164
+ ],
+ [
+ 520.974,
+ 66.204
+ ],
+ [
+ 230.982,
+ 66.204
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 47,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 15.325
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 15.325
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 64.365
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 64.365
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE \nDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS \nOFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 48,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 234.354,
+ 22.681
+ ],
+ [
+ 525.189,
+ 22.681
+ ],
+ [
+ 525.189,
+ 67.7744140625
+ ],
+ [
+ 234.354,
+ 67.7744140625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \" CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 49,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 219.18,
+ 20.229000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 508.32899999999995,
+ 20.229000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 508.32899999999995,
+ 77.851
+ ],
+ [
+ 219.18,
+ 77.851
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 50,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.0319999999999,
+ 26.358999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.0319999999999,
+ 70.495
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 70.495
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 51,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.88300000000004,
+ 22.067999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 22.067999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 66.204
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.88300000000004,
+ 66.204
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 52,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 230.982,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 520.974,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 520.974,
+ 66.204
+ ],
+ [
+ 230.982,
+ 66.204
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \"CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 53,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 224.238,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.544,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 512.544,
+ 80.303
+ ],
+ [
+ 224.238,
+ 80.303
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \" CENTRAL CONTROL. \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 54,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 82.75500000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 82.75500000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 55,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 228.453,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 517.602,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 517.602,
+ 57.009
+ ],
+ [
+ 228.453,
+ 57.009
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 55,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 295.04999999999995,
+ 57.009
+ ],
+ [
+ 443.41799999999995,
+ 57.009
+ ],
+ [
+ 443.41799999999995,
+ 70.495
+ ],
+ [
+ 295.04999999999995,
+ 70.495
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \" CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 56,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 231.82500000000002,
+ 27.585
+ ],
+ [
+ 520.974,
+ 27.585
+ ],
+ [
+ 520.974,
+ 85.82000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 231.82500000000002,
+ 85.82000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 57,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 71.721
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 71.721
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 58,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 27.585
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 27.585
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG CENTRAL CONTROL",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 59,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 85.82000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 85.82000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 60,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 246.156,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 74.173
+ ],
+ [
+ 246.156,
+ 74.173
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 61,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 234.354,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 524.346,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 524.346,
+ 73.56
+ ],
+ [
+ 234.354,
+ 73.56
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 266
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 31,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 32,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 201
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 33,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 34,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 35,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 36,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 37,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 38,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 39,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 40,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 41,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 490
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 42,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 43,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 44,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 45,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 402
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 58
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 46,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 47,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 48,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 40
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 49,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 50,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 51,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 52,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 53,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 54,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 55,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 56,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 57,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 58,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 59,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 60,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 61,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749323"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_15_Picture_18.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_15_Picture_18.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b274e53c9215d243d20f55b89e260abd6025adb7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_15_Picture_18.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:c4bcb85774c449bfe0418bdb7208265b5f2416f4138d66cea474301345b84bf2
+size 3496
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_19_Picture_18.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_19_Picture_18.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a3dc38d710bf25bbf28bdd4caed7f7dfdb75ed39
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_19_Picture_18.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:d9d45a1b5bab18c0e67b23c14339ed70093c3bbece77fcb1d9e65f717ae9529b
+size 4354
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_20_Picture_17.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_20_Picture_17.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..37b2b0dfa6d4b94601657a1d6a05e26b032d882c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_20_Picture_17.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:0b5c5fb24b8b9f2d761a6a7a7d4ecef93727c1c87f57c2dd211e1ca76620c057
+size 4031
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_22_Picture_17.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_22_Picture_17.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..445d0b6d3c7dafab1989d7eca603a1ee1154227a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_22_Picture_17.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:88bd919827f1dd88c0b7ca87e4d746d91eb3e5a9a3bb84bf0fef22126d90b697
+size 3985
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_24_Picture_15.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_24_Picture_15.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..10ea9d352c54f056e4a779d888968101f4a040db
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_24_Picture_15.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:6cfdd55397a86ba40f34e0d5dd185a933723c223eb27521b5ba3bd72e0f52295
+size 4182
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_25_Picture_18.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_25_Picture_18.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f35b37d94546732f0740834b694d4faf9f795ee9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_25_Picture_18.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:3b5a2c772d4b34907ae02558e192ea49cae9dadfd7e1fb08089513926f804043
+size 4444
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_26_Picture_17.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_26_Picture_17.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f6d89b9945a9480f2081b1be0c3e0777328eb9ee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_26_Picture_17.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:b522b81fdb03a1a550475729a301a053ee153fad45e55d022e09ab2f9375da8a
+size 4670
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_27_Picture_17.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_27_Picture_17.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8526e0bf37009bfa018d545f7a4992f81357e6ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_27_Picture_17.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:f859af8e66540b2f43afe87c93dc3f4c6ec3a04f81395f7cc8bb9d79816e8f77
+size 4163
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_2_Picture_18.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_2_Picture_18.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a5515535c94c65ba3fd7f0a9131a662b82a25274
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_2_Picture_18.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:667a1a6b8d2471866ef06ded1d9b2085040317308dad57443a2c283428608dc0
+size 4162
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_39_Picture_19.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_39_Picture_19.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b655c9a512dd808bf6dded94d46605ba02093c2b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_39_Picture_19.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:66732dfa098c03e23c1fa8a31538a888957935eff03d347465274c9b7b1e9619
+size 3767
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_42_Picture_11.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_42_Picture_11.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a2083785606ffa31e86c54160a6688a2fffbc259
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_42_Picture_11.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:a45572ff71335d3fbb83934fc14698e487dbca2c021a950086ea41fea60b2e35
+size 5558
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_45_Picture_476.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_45_Picture_476.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2caf5b851357d58774d3909ccf291d44e5dd5745
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_45_Picture_476.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:adf8b7b2d1626418dbce33027ec458a861b093803a04c7ffc5000b60f3f190b2
+size 3988
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_4_Picture_18.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_4_Picture_18.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..431b9b938c9bff1f92660ed9a80961324751af7e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_4_Picture_18.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:5607edd99462b03f8034d1a11a3544c3e0f53226b80bef7130921259e06bf34a
+size 4388
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_52_Picture_15.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_52_Picture_15.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d6836ae75361276946b9f2fda188f83c567b756
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_52_Picture_15.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:a3d882456e4a94923ee1e67d3df21b65052a83e90c2a8d99bfcea4dc1cc37ab6
+size 4671
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_55_Picture_28.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_55_Picture_28.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a1fabc64c7364de19d556ae8efed1ca59433706e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_55_Picture_28.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:b6362659aa6344d41c98dd1a5ad927b567e7b9c014379099909a01e475a60263
+size 4552
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_56_Picture_12.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_56_Picture_12.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d019c2e789524e36bc16caf99198aa835166c65
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_56_Picture_12.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:eef2059818bdb96398b9ce702096aad556cef1ed925854385288f27e97a42ebc
+size 4097
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_58_Picture_18.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_58_Picture_18.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7338a6c2a99129303dfd419676c07a6cf13476d1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_58_Picture_18.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:88d1ba3a6b65c0648b50aae5edb0ba44ddeb33986b54c285a1b37486f2704e95
+size 4086
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_59_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_59_Picture_14.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b0c8b6b4422642b6fff772f43d6a80ff50f0c52
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_59_Picture_14.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:87d293e703c975bb9826e7351ffbd22d8c944e0065e0c248a5a5e71521dbc740
+size 4644
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_5_Picture_18.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_5_Picture_18.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f49878ddf67a5b4b764aeeec7dd541aa6cb9380e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_5_Picture_18.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:1569d1be5946c55ebfd8ac143026cb3a74b3fc353b63ca63efd7a695fc0a4556
+size 3493
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_60_Picture_18.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_60_Picture_18.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f074b03ab2822fc8797344f71e1e64dabea6d24e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_60_Picture_18.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:f5ba4603c3acdc1e9e75571b869aa5cc5a015d4bd35b2012dad7bc468c741124
+size 3853
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_7_Picture_16.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_7_Picture_16.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2b49da50add980e910b0679297e958fa00ec030
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_7_Picture_16.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:9883bec160751e9bfaf4cb45786ea0ac781d9b217feeeeb6dfd1e5e4a5f40f0d
+size 4111
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_9_Picture_16.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_9_Picture_16.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..10fa3629d1fba0b051840a496d23c07edfde891a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749323/_page_9_Picture_16.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:746cbb31c965264e2ad406a381304c17adec58ea1d2b64a964160ff9c5ebb28f
+size 4615
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/EFTA02749385.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/EFTA02749385.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a9c60720eaf4134b84a05b2f9bedec754e97a153
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/EFTA02749385.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1293 @@
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+# EXHIBIT I Part 3 of 3
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|
+| 10:3-08 | 935 | DANTE MADING | PBSO | L-DORM | 10:49 |
+| 10:3-08 | 935 | MULLE MASSEH | PBSO | L-DORM | 10:56 |
+| 10:3-08 | 958 | PATRICIA CASIMIR | VI | T-DORM | 10:28 |
+| 10:3-08 | 1117 | HENRICH (PBSO) | PBSO | C-DORM | 11:40 |
+| 10:3-08 | 200 | CELIXTE VIAU | VI | MEDICAL | 13:15 |
+| 10:3-08 | 1210 | STORY CRAWLES | VI | T-SPECIAL | 13:17 |
+| 10:3-08 | 1300 | RONY SCOFSON | VI | COMPOUND (MOTEL) | 13:10 |
+| 10/3/08 | 1350 | MARY DE GASTE | PBSO | T-ORIENTATION | 15:58 |
+| 10/3/08 | 1410 | ROBERT HUMES/ | PBSO | T-K-DORM | 15:59 |
+| 10/3/08 | 1415 | BASSICA WALLEY | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 16:00 |
+| 10/3/08 | 1415 | WICKE FAINSWORTH | PBSO | T-DORM | 15:40 |
+| 10/3/08 | 1735 | LAWRENCE NEWMAN | VI | T-SPECIAL (ATTORNEY) | 12:25 |
+| 10/3/08 | 1812 | MARVIN COLLINS (TRACER) | VI | DRUG FARM ALUMNI | 12:30 0 |
+| 10/3/08 | 1812 | ANDRE ALLEN (TRACER) | VI | DRUG FARM ALUMNI | 12:30 0 |
+| 10/3/08 | 1815 | STORY CRAWLES (ATTORNEY) | VI | T-SPEC | 12:47 0 |
+| 10/3/08 | 1815 | CLARK ERLAND (TRACER) | VI | DRUG FARM ALUMNI | 12:50 0 |
+| 10/3/08 | 1959 | Gennady, ZHURAVL YOV | VI | DRUG FARM ALUMNI | 2:05 |
+| 10/3/08 | 1959 | Migiel A. ABIEGA | VI | DRUG FARM ALUMNI | 2:05 |
+| 10/3/08 | 1959 | Phillip W. STEPHENS | VI | DRUG FARM ALUMNI | 2:05 |
+| 10/3/08 | 1959 | RASHAD C. DANSBY | VI | DRUG FARM ALUMNI | 2:05 |
+| 10/3/08 | 2008 | ANTONIO WALLS | VI | DRUG FARM ALUMNI | 2:05 |
+| 10/4/08 | 0140 | GUELTO ANKINE | PBSO | Trinity STAFF - QUEBEC | 2:05 |
+| 10/4/08 | 0145 | JORATH KORN | PBSO | Drug Farm | 10:38 |
+| 10-4-08 | 915 | MIRANDE OSTRIY | PBSO | Drug Farm | 11:01 |
+| 10-4-08 | 104 | STORY CRAWLES | VI | T-SPECIAL | 12:50 |
+| 10-4-08 | 1248 | MIRANDE MARCEL | VI | T-SPECIAL | 12:06 |
+
+
+
+**CENTRAL CONTROL**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 10.4.08 | 1150 | Joseph Pagcaro | UI | T-Special | 1600 |
+| 10.4.08 | 1526 | Jack Goldberg-U | UI | T-Special | 1715 |
+| 10.4.08 | 1815 | Story Cowles | UI | T-Special | 1932 |
+| 10.4.08 | 1904 | David Smith (PD) | U | SB-DORM | 2040 |
+| 10.5.08 | 0125 | Evelyn Wilford (PD) | PBSO | Trinity Staff-Quebec | 0927 |
+| 10-05-08 | 0814 | Angeliki Weissinger (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1711 |
+| 10-05-08 | 0837 | W. Holman- Deputy | PBSO | Line-up room. | 0850 |
+| 10-05-08 | 0907 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1722 |
+| 10-05-08 | 1002 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1840 |
+| 10-05-08 | 1003 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | PBSO | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1207 |
+| 10-05-08 | 1209 | Ingrid Abello- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M: [REDACTED], Veron (SB09). | 1258 |
+| 10-05-08 | 1502 | Michealanne Marie- Stafe of FL. | PBSO | I/M's: Clark(SB05); Grupp (C-Dorm); Master (A-Dorm) | 1554 |
+| 10-05-08 | 1527 | Tatiana Bertsch- Public Defender | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates. | 1711 |
+| 10.5.08 | 1736 | Story Cowles | UI | T-Special | 2104 |
+| 10.5.08 | 1837 | Arnold Prospin | U | T-Special | 1935 |
+| 10.5.08 | 1950 | James Smith | UI | T-DORM | 2106 |
+| 10.6.08 | 144 | E. Wilford | PBSO | Trinity Staff-Quebec | 1027 |
+| 10.6.08 | 628 | E. Green | PBSO | Trinity Staff | 1438 |
+| 10.6.08 | 715 | T. Justin | PBSO | SAAP | 0934 |
+| 10.6.08 | 725 | C. Bronstein | PBSO | Drug Farm area | 1107 |
+| 10.6.08 | 788 | Tiga Arthur (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm area | 1100 |
+| 10.6.08 | 744 | Mr. West | PBSO | Drug Farm area | 1558 |
+| 10.6.08 | 744 | Mr. Graves | PBSO | Drug Farm area | 1107 |
+| 10.6.08 | 747 | A. Weissinger | PBSO | SAAP | 1630 |
+| 10.6.08 | 0751 | P. Edelman | PBSO | DAF | 1100 |
+| 10.6.08 | 1756 | Michealanne Hutman | PBSO | | |
+
+hegalagenic.com
+
+ESP +
+Extra Services
+pariseal
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|----------|
+| 10-06-08 | 0802 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | |
+| 10-06-08 | 0803 | Jäy Badgett- PBCSB | PBSO | School Classroom. | 1514 |
+| 10-06-08 | 0859 | Gail Bremner- Canine Companions | V-11 | Drug Farm area. | 1140 |
+| 10-06-08 | 0905 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1107 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1013 | Rosie Hyppolite- Children and Families | V-12 | I/M: Chancey, [REDACTED] (D-Dorm) | 1703 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1149 | Arthur Troy- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1046 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1202 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1619 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1202 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1356 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1215 | Caitlin Bronstein- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1819 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1218 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB Teacher | PBSO | School Classroom. | 1610 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1228 | Calixte Viau- Xray Tech | V-11 | Medical via gate #16. | 1303 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1307 | Jak Goldberger- Attorney | L-2 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special) | 1256 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1316 | Damon Clark- Bio Meds Tech | V-11 | en route to medical via gate #16. | 1339 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1316 | Edwin Silva- Bio Meds Tech | V-12 | en route to medical via gate #16 | 1334 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1325 | Amy Morsé- Attorney | L-3 | I/M: Sumner (RA-Dorm). | 1334 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1357 | Lindsay Hanson- Public Defender | PBSO | various dorms to see inmates. | 1418 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1414 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1612 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1422 | Timothy Justin- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1658 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1424 | Kenneth Huxhold- SAAP | PBSO | L/M-Dorm to see inmates. | 1610 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1424 | Robert Humes- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1522 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1503 | [REDACTED] Pagano- Paralegal | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1655 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1534 | Jerry Wade- Public Defender | L-4 | I/M: Jean Baptiste, Nathaniel (A-Dorm). | 1549 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1534 | Darren Indyke- Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1600 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1750 | Joan Lawlor (Clergy) | C-1 | DRUG FARM | 1740 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1750 | Thomas Wanitsky (Clergy) | C-2 | DRUG FARM | 1936 |
+| 10-06-08 | 1754 | Annol Drugs | | DRUG FARM | 1620 |
+
+
+
+Central Control
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 10/06/08 | 1830 | Carlton Hester | C-3 | Church Services | 2000 |
+| 10/06/08 | 1844 | Story Crowles (Ran-legal) | L-1 | T-Special (Epstein, Jeffery) | 2103 |
+| 10/06/08 | 1846 | Renee Smith (N.A.) | V-11 | Drug Farm - Charlie Dorm | 2014 |
+| 10/06/08 | 1905 | Lawrence Hardnett | C-4 | Church Services | 2000 |
+| 10/06/08 | 2003 | Tara Smith (Alumini) | V-12 | Drug Farm C-Dorm | 2110 |
+| 10/06/08 | 2003 | Hilda Collins (Alumini) | V-13 | Drug Farm - Charlie Dorm | 2110 |
+| 10/06/08 | 2005 | John Lickert Jr. (A.A.) | V-14 | Drug Farm - Tango - Dorm | 2108 |
+| 10/06/08 | 2030 | Lorri Kennedy (Allorney) | L-2 | John Moores Lima - Dorm | 2132 |
+| 10/07/08 | 0130 | Evelyn Wilford (Trinity) | PBSO | Kitchen | 1131 |
+| 10/07/08 | 0638 | Liz Green (Trinity) | PBSO | Kitchen | 1425 |
+| 10/07/08 | 0715 | Timothy Justial (SAAP) | PBSO | Kitchen Drug Farm area | 1040 |
+| 10/07/08 | 0722 | Arthur Troy (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1610 |
+| 10/07/08 | 0734 | Cary Gibson (DATA) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1600 |
+| 10-07-08 | 0734 | Caitlin Bronstein (DAF) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1031 |
+| 10-07-08 | 0735 | Chevelle Hytower (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1803 |
+| 10-07-08 | 0739 | Michael West (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1536 |
+| 10-07-08 | 0740 | John Habicht (Trinity) | PBSO | Kitchen | 1512 |
+| 10-07-08 | 0742 | Weisslenger (SAAP) | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1714 |
+| 10-07-08 | 0744 | Patricia Elderman DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1547 |
+| 10-07-08 | 0755 | Susan Wilkoff | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1106 |
+| 10-07-08 | 0803 | Martina Jean Baphatz (PD) | PBSO | Various Dorm to see IIM's. | 1023 |
+| 10-07-08 | 0809 | Jay Badgett - PBCSB Teacher | PBSO | School Classroom. | 1236 |
+| 10-07-08 | 0826 | Jessica Wally - DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1700 |
+| 10-07-08 | 9:00 | Emilcar, Elta - Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Building | 1755 |
+| 10-07-08 | 0924 | L. Rice - Deputy | PBSO | Sgt. Office | 0976 |
+| 10-07-08 | 0944 | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+
+
+
+| CENTRAL CONTROL " | | | | | |
+|-----------------------|---------|------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|----------|
+| MAIN DETENTION CENTER | | STOCKADE | | WEST COUNTY DETENTION | |
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+| 10-07-08 | 0944 | Alison [REDACTED] - Attorney | L-1 | I/M: McElhone, [REDACTED] (SA18). | 1040 |
+| 10-07-08 | 0959 | Jack [REDACTED] - Magella Health | V-12 | To see Lt. [REDACTED]. | 1040 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1002 | Esther Finzi - Special Visit | Viso | I/M: Dan Finzi | 1200 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1002 | Rene Finzi - Special Visit | Viso | I/M: Dan Finzi | 1118 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1002 | Richard Finzi - Special Visit. | Viso | I/M: Dan Finzi | 1118 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1007 | [REDACTED] - Tropical Fence | V-13 | on the compound w/Lt. Morris. | 1118 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1008 | Patrech Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSo | Q-Bldg. | 1120 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1023 | Lloyd [REDACTED] Jr- Vulcan Pset Control | V-1 | on the compound via gate #16. | 1850 |
+| 10-07-08 | 12:00 | Attorney Story Cowles - Attorney | L-2 | T-special Jeffrey Epstein | 1118 |
+| 10-07-08 | 12:03 | Pablo [REDACTED] - PD | PBSO | David [REDACTED] in Admin | 1340 |
+| 10-07-08 | 12:15 | Susan Wilkoff - DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1503 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1236 | Conrad Saddler- Pre-Trial Services | PBSO | I/M: [REDACTED], Shawn (A-Dorm). | 1716 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1258 | Caitlin Bronstein- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1254 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1317 | Jeff Gibson- ESS | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1700 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1320 | [REDACTED] Varju- SAAP | PBSO | Central Control. | 1445 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1323 | REv. Bannister- Chaplain | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1610 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1404 | Sarah Korn- DAF | PBSO | On the compound. | 1707 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1415 | Robert Humes- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1700 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1506 | Sarah Ferrer- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1455 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1506 | Mary Wilson- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 700 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1528 | Richard Monescalchi- Attorney | L-4 | I/M: Conelly, Tiffany (C-Dorm). | 1700 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1536 | Darren Indyke- Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special) | 11640 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1750 | Bernstein, Andrew | V-13 | Credit canceled | 1630 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1810 | Gilfand, clark (GED) | V-2 | | 1915 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1810 | Allen, Annette (GED) | V-3 | | 2007 |
+| 10-07-08 | 1810 | Alance Manila | | | |
+
+C 0 CD O O O I-F O i co a, F:.,
+
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 10-08-08 | 1209 | STORY COWLES (PARA-LEGAL) | L1 | T-SPECIAL (F/M: ERSTEIN, J) | 1310 |
+| 10-08-08 | 1235 | STANLEY SANDERS (VINYAL EVIDENCE) | V1 | BOOKING | 1433 |
+| 10-08-08 | 1242 | MISTY TAYLOR (ATTY) | V2 | BOOKING | 1438 |
+| 10-08-08 | 1251 | CINDY YORK (COURT REPORTER) | V3 | BOOKING | 1442 |
+| 10-08-08 | 1258 | SANDIGAN FOSTER (ATTY) | L2 | D-DORM | 335 |
+| 10-08-08 | 1301 | STEVEN CALAMYA (ATTY) | L3 | BOOKING | 1442 |
+| 10-08-08 | 1415 | JEWICA WALLY (DAF) | PBJD | DRUG FARM | 1703 |
+| 10-08-08 | 1419 | ROBERT HYMES (DAF) | PBJD | DRUG FARM | 1646 |
+| 10-08-08 | 1421 | SARAH KORN (DAF) | PBJD | DRUG FARM | 1703 |
+| 10-08-08 | 1422 | SUSAN WINSTON (ATTY) | L1 | D-DORM | 1548 |
+| 10-08-08 | 1532 | ANNA D PROSPERI (ATTY) | L2 | T-SPECIAL | 1645 |
+| 10-08-08 | 1537 | URWILL COEWELL (ATTY) | L3 | SA-DORM | 1648 |
+| 10-08-08 | 1557 | MICHAEL JHAYT (ATTY) | L4 | SA-DORM | 1648 |
+| 10-08-08 | 1800 | SISTER BANDSTER | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1940 |
+| 10-8-08 | 1800 | Stephen Alexander ppi | PBSD | T-Special pgs yn Repslend J | 1831 |
+| 10-8-08 | 1800 | Steve Anderson valuation | PBSD | Drug Farm | 1435 |
+| 10-8-08 | 1801 | Steve Cowles para-legal | L#4 | T-Special yn Repslend J | 2005 |
+| 10-8-08 | 1805 | James Summers (Chengy) | PBSD | Drug Farm, L-T. | 2006 |
+| 10-8-08 | 1835 | Guillermo Arias | C-4 | Clergy - chuck | 2005 |
+| 10-8-08 | 1838 | Sasefine Toldan | C-5 | Clergy - chuck | 2005 |
+| 10-8-08 | 1835 | Alsana Schellis | C-6 | Clergy - chuck | 2005 |
+| 10-8-08 | 1838 | Shantz Martha | V-17 | NA - chatic | 2000 |
+| 10-8-08 | 1838 | Cohn Kristine | V-14 | NA - chatic | 2000 |
+| 10-8-08 | 1850 | Robert Greene | V-1 | T-Dorm | 2057 |
+| 10-8-08 | 1850 | Steven Curtis | V-10 | T-Dorm | 2057 |
+
+legals@plan.com
+
+*Central Control*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|----------|
+| 10-17-08 | 1439 | Frank Kessler (PD) | L4 | T-Dorm | 1510 |
+| 10-17-08 | 1450 | Alfred Miller (PD) | PBSO | COMPOUND | 1540 |
+| 10-17-08 | 1525 | Jack Fleischman (PD) | L1 | RB, D | 1610 |
+| 10-17-08 | 1538 | Martine | PBSO | F-Dorm | 1707 |
+| 10-17-08 | 1453 | | | T-Dorm | |
+| 10-17-08 | 1759 | Jack Fuchs (Attorney) | L-1 | T-Dorm (Hall, William) | 1825 |
+| 10-17-08 | 1805 | Annette Allen (GED) | V-11 | DRUG FARM | 930 |
+| 10-17-08 | 2000 | Miguel Abega | VII | Alumi | 2105 |
+| 10-17-08 | 2000 | Johnnip Kidge | VII | Alumi | 2105 |
+| 10-17-08 | 2000 | Martha W. Crispe | VII | Alumi | 2105 |
+| 10-17-08 | 2000 | Gennady Zhuanylou | VII | Alumi | 2105 |
+| 10-17-08 | 2000 | Rashad Danshy | VII | Alumi | 2105 |
+| 10-17-08 | 2000 | Antonio Wells | VII | Alumi | 2105 |
+| 10-18-08 | 0130 | Curtis Pinkney | PBSO | Trinity Staff - Quebec | 1207 |
+| 10-18-08 | 0142 | Jarah Korn | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1127 |
+| 10-18-08 | 0916 | Linda Leary- United Deliverance Min | PBSO | I/M: Curfran, Brad (SA05). | 0947 |
+| 10-18-08 | 1001 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1528 |
+| 10-18-08 | 1026 | Deneka Cummings- [REDACTED]- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M: Cortez, [REDACTED] (RA05). | 1118 |
+| 10-18-08 | 1950 | ROBERT SHANLEY (NA) | V-2 | Drug Farm | 2102 |
+| 10-18-08 | 1750 | ROBERT McCARR (NA) | V-4 | Drug Farm | 2102 |
+| 10-19-08 | 0135 | Evelyn Milford | PBSO | Trinity Staff / Kitchen | 1343 |
+| 10-19-08 | 0919 | Chevelle Hytower- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1722 |
+| 10-19-08 | 0925 | Stephen Alexander- Psych Dr | V-14 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1050 |
+| 10-19-08 | 1051 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1442 |
+| 10-19-08 | 1230 | John Riordran- Attorney | L-10 | I/M: Matos, Brandon (T-Dorm). | 1248 |
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|--------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 10-18-08 | 1239 | Charles Mead- Attorney | L-4 | I/M: Valladares, Enqria (A-Dorm). | 1254 |
+| 10-18-08 | 1358 | Agent [REDACTED] - Deputy | PBSO | Adult Custody Office. | |
+| 10-18-08 | 1358 | William Paul- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M: Adderly, Shebly (RA-Dorm). | |
+| 10-19-08 | 1529 | Willold Drosperi- Paralegal | L-10 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (A-Special) | 1444 |
+| 10-19-08 | 1732 | Story Crowles | L-1 | T-Special - Epstein, Jeffrey | 1755 |
+| 10-19-08 | 1950 | Lee Black (N.A.) | V-11 | T-DORM | 1935 |
+| 10-19-08 | 1950 | James Smith (A.A.) | V-12 | T-DORM | 2103 |
+| 10-20-08 | 0140 | Wilford, Evelyn | PBSO | Trinity Staff | 2103 |
+| 10-20-08 | 2555 | Habitch John | PBSO | Trinity Staff | 1226 |
+| 10-20-08 | 063 | Green Elizabeth | PBSO | Trinity Staff | 1516 |
+| 10-20-08 | 070 | Cattlin Bronstein | PBSO | Trinity Staff | 1437 |
+| 10-20-08 | 0725 | Troy Anthon | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1145 |
+| 10-20-08 | 0735 | Gary Bellon Gulpon | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1619 |
+| 10-20-08 | 0736 | Hollow Chevelle | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1552 |
+| 10-20-08 | 0745 | Michael West | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1640 |
+| 10-20-08 | 0749 | Patricia Edelman- [REDACTED] | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1600 |
+| 10-20-08 | 0750 | Angeliki Wessinger- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1138 |
+| 10-20-08 | 0806 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1919 |
+| 10-20-08 | 0828 | Calixte Viau- Xray Tech | V-14 | School Classroom. | 1124 |
+| 10-20-08 | 0915 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Medical vis gate #16. | 0837 |
+| 10-20-08 | 1124 | Pablo [REDACTED] - DAF | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1845 |
+| 10-20-08 | 1324 | Veronique Valery- Public Def. Office | V-14 | David Gillert Office and Drug Farm area. | 1323 |
+| 10-20-08 | 1327 | [REDACTED] Varju- SAAP | PBSO | I/M: Shellman, Wayne (RB18). | 1340 |
+| 10-20-08 | 1348 | Nicole Dimasi- Sta. of Fl. Invest | V-7 | Drug Farm area. | 1619 |
+| 10-20-08 | 1408 | Cattlin Bronstein - SAAP | PBSO | I/M's: Alder (D-Dorm) and Rocco(F-3). | 1419 |
+| 10-20-08 | 1418 | John Raynolds [REDACTED] | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1626 |
+
+Case #: 0000000000000000 Enclosure #: 0000000000000000 Exempted on FLSB Docket 05/07/2019 Page 9 of 34
+
+*CENTRAL CONTROL*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|----------|
+| 10-25-08 | 140 | EVELYN WILFORD TRINITY | PBSO | HITCHEN | 0950 |
+| 10-26-08 | 751 | PATRICIA EDELMAN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1108 |
+| 10-26-08 | 0921 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | |
+| 10-26-08 | 0954 | Stephen Alexander- Psych Dr. | V-12 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1807 |
+| 10-26-08 | 1015 | Elta Emiclar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1241 |
+| 10-26-08 | 1337 | Patricia Edelman-DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 10-26-08 | 1504 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-5 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1543 |
+| 10-26-08 | 1854 | Allan Richard Greesey (Attorney) | L-1 | Mr. Harrison, Koryson | 1647 |
+| 10-26-08 | Fillo | Charles Richards | PBSO | Q-Building | 1916 |
+| 10-26-08 | 2057 | CSP Bureall | PBSO | Line Up Room | 1945 |
+| 10-27-08 | 127 | EVELYN WILFORD TRINITY | PBSO | HITCHEN | 2110 |
+| 10-27-08 | 626 | ELIZABETH GREEN TRINITY | PBSO | HITCHEN | 1020 |
+| 10-27-08 | 730 | PATRICIA EDELMAN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1442 |
+| 10-27-08 | 733 | TAM PL ADTHUR TROY SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1452 |
+| 10-27-08 | 737 | GARY GIBSON SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1150 |
+| 10-27-08 | 739 | MS BROWSTIEN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1139 |
+| 10-27-08 | 746 | MR WEST SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1119 |
+| 10-27-08 | 749 | JULIE ADAMS SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1139 |
+| 10-27-08 | 0748 | Martine Jean Baptiste- Public Def Office | L-1 | Various dorms to see inmates. | 1658 |
+| 10-27-08 | 0749 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 0928 |
+| 10-27-08 | 0755 | Jay Badgett- PBCSB | PBSO | School Classroom. | 1630 |
+| 10-27-08 | 0758 | Susan Wilkoff- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1120 |
+| 10-27-08 | 0805 | Chevelle Hytower- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1150 |
+| 10-27-08 | 0842 | Timothy Justin- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1149 |
+| 10-27-08 | 0915 | Harry [REDACTED] - T-Net | PBSO | F-Dorm. | 1304 |
+| 10-27-08 | 0920 | Deloris Williams- Correct Ms. | | | 1026 |
+
+*"C"
+Shift*
+
+Detention Center
+Detention Center
+
+34
+
+Case 9007-W-80119-KAMS Document 540-4 Entered on FESD Docket 05/07/2019 Page 1 of 34
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|--------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|------------------------|
+| 11-1-08 | 1006 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 11:00 Shirt |
+| 11-1-08 | 1033 | Guillermo Herno- ESS | PBSO | Facilities Mgmt Office. | 1233 |
+| 11-1-08 | 1110 | DS Carlson- Deputy | PBSO | Line- up room | 1121 |
+| 11-1-08 | 1110 | Raymond Carlson- Manager | PBSO | Line- up room | 1121 |
+| 11-01-08 | 1233 | Abbey Strauss- Psych Dr. | V-8- | I/M: Rodriquez, Marcia (SA05). | 1404 |
+| 11-01-08 | 1339 | Agent [REDACTED]- Deputy | PBSO | Adult Custody Office. | 1730 |
+| 11-01-08 | 1407 | Peter Patanzo- Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Wilson, Veronica (L-Dorm). | 1517 |
+| 11-01-08 | 1537 | Narine Austin- Atty. | L-1 | I/M: Tripp, Casey (T-39) | 1655 |
+| 11-01-08 | 1537 | Dana Marcus- PB | PBSO | I/M: Tripp, Casey (T-39) | 1655 |
+| 11-02-08 | 112 | EVELYN WILFORD- TRINITY | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1015 |
+| 11-02-08 | 0859 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1730 |
+| 11-02-08 | 0914 | Susan Wilkoff- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1225 |
+| 11-02-08 | 0949 | Chevell Hytower- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1512 |
+| 11-02-08 | 0950 | Stephen Alexander- Psych Dr. | V-8 | I/M: Esptein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1230 |
+| 11-02-08 | 0958 | Elta Emilcar- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1858 |
+| 11-02-08 | 1529 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-3 | I/M: Poster, Jeffrey (T-Special) | 1805 |
+| 11-02-08 | 1752 | Arnold Paul Prosperi (PARA) | L-5 | I/M Esptein, Jeffrey, | 1857 |
+| 11-02-08 | 1949 | Names Smith (A.A.) | V-8 | Tango Dorm | 2105 |
+| 11-03-08 | 148 | EVELYN WILFORD TRINITY | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1019 |
+| 11-03-08 | 614 | ELIZABETH GREEN TRINITY | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1431 |
+| 11-03-08 | 709 | ARTHUR TROY SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1600 |
+| 11-03-06 | 733 | MS ROWSTEN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1104 |
+| 11-03-06 | 735 | TIM JUSTIN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1648 |
+| 11-03-06 | 740 | MS HIGH TOWER SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1648 |
+| 11-03-06 | 746 | FARY GIBSON SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1606 |
+| 11-03-08 | 746 | MR WINCT CANN | PBSO | | |
+
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ CENTRAL CONTROL
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 11/06/08 | 1300 | JOSEPH VARJU | PBJ0 | DRUG FARM | 1605 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1307 | MARY LEE WALLACE (BIBBE SMITH) | CI | RA-DORM | 1432 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1319 | ALFRED MILLER (P.D.) | PBJ0 | B-DORM | 1424 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1427 | ROBERT HUMPER (DAF) | PBJ0 | DRUG FARM | 1656 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1430 | LLOYD SMITH (VULCAN PEST) | VI | VARIOUS | 1500 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1437 | DENNIS DORE (PROCESS SERVER) | V2 | SB-DORM | 1477 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1453 | DONALD TURNER (GALERNA (ROP.D.)) | V3 | A-DORM, D-DORM | 1620 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1453 | JOHN WHELAN (GALERNA (ROP.D.)) | V4 | A-DORM, D-DORM | 1620 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1512 | LEONARDO TORRIBORDA (P.D.) | PBJ0 | VARIOUS | 1607 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1528 | JERRY WADE (PD) | PBJ0 | M-DORM | 1540 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1530 | ARNOLD PROSPERI (ATTY) | L1 | T-SPECIAL (F/M: EPSTEIN, J) | 1719 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1607 | JOHN RICHARDSON (ATTY) | L2 | L-DORM | 1742 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1731 | STORY COWLES (PARA-LEGAL) | L1 | T-SPECIAL (F/M: EPSTEIN, J) | 1912 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1804 | MARVIN GLOVER (EDUCATION) | VI | JK-DORM | 1940 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1804 | ANNETTE ALLEN (EDUCATION) | V2 | JK-DORM | 1940 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1813 | ANDREW BERNSTEIN (EDUCATION) | V3 | T-DORM | 1940 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1957 | WILLIAM CAVANAUGH (ATTY) | L1 | L-DORM | 1912 |
+| 11/06/08 | 1954 | JOHNNIE PERKINS (AD) | VI | T-DORM | 2043 |
+| 11/06/08 | 2014 | DR. STEPHEN ALEXANDER | V2 | T-SPECIAL (F/M: EPSTEIN, J) | 2103 |
+| 11/7/08 | 0644 | Elizabeth Green (TRUNITY) | PBJ0 | Quebec | 0814 |
+| 11/7/08 | 0700 | Patricia Edelman (SAAP) | PBJ0 | J+K | 1430 |
+| 11/7/08 | 0710 | Anthun Troy (SAAP) | PBJ0 | J+K | 1208 |
+| 11/7/08 | 0725 | Cherylle Huytower (SAAP) | PBJ0 | J+K | 1449 |
+| 11/7/08 | 0744 | Angelika Wessinge (SAAP) | PBJ0 | J+K | 1607 |
+| 11/7/08 | 0745 | Gary Gibson (SAAP) | PBJ0 | J+K | 1601 |
+| 11/7/08 | 0745 | Marian Laloct (SAAP) | PBJ0 | J+K | 1545 |
+
+SOLS-500-4
+Search
+Serials
+Out Statement
+(of defects)
+
+Independent Commissioner
+
+34
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|----------|
+| 11/13/08 | | Sister Bennister | | | 1551 |
+| 11/13/08 | 0808 | STEVEN MALON ATTORNEY | L-1 | HARTMAN, TERRI LYNN M-DORM | 0905 |
+| 11/13/08 | 0841 | SEAN QUINN ([REDACTED] LOGOL) | L2 | F-DORM | 0918 |
+| 11/13/08 | 0841 | JOHN NABICHT (TRINITY) | PBJO | B-BLDG | 1524 |
+| 11/13/08 | 0855 | GAIL BREMNER (K9 COMPANIONS) | V4 | DRUG FARM (K-9 TRAINERS) | 1112 |
+| 11/13/08 | 0855 | LINDA HANTJORNE (K9 COMPANIONS) | V5 | DRUG FARM (K-9 TRAINERS) | 1112 |
+| 11/13/08 | 0901 | MARC TRACEY (P.P.) | PBJO | R-DORM | 0916 |
+| 11/13/08 | 0918 | DONALD BIERMAN | L1 | RA-DORM | 1048 |
+| 11/13/08 | 0918 | PATRICIA NENBY (TRINITY) | PBJO | B-BLDG | 1730 |
+| 11/13/08 | 0933 | JOSHUA LEROY (P.P.) | PBJO | M-DORM | 1056 |
+| 11/13/08 | 0933 | PABLO GONZALEZ (PAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1151 |
+| 11/13/08 | 0852 | FRANK KESSLER (ATTY) | L2 | T-DORM | 1651 |
+| 11/13/08 | 1005 | MIRLANDE OSTING (TRINITY) | PBJO | B-BLDG | |
+| 11/13/08 | 1029 | MAEGAN YOUNG (P.P.) | PBJO | F-DORM | 1214 |
+| 11/13/08 | 1029 | ANTHONY RYAN (ATTY) | L3 | F-DORM | 1214 |
+| 11/13/08 | 1127 | MICHAEL LIMPKIN (T-NETIX) | PBJO | T-DORM | 1232 |
+| 11/13/08 | 1315 | Mary WALLACE | V-11 | RAOS BIBBLE STUDY FOR LIFESKILLS | 1430 |
+| 11/13/08 | 1340 | ELIZABETH CAPO (DCF) | V-3 | Williams, Benita K L-DORM | 1506 |
+| 11/13/08 | 1341 | DANIEL MYRLPHY (WGI) | V2 | VARIOUS | 1429 |
+| 11/13/08 | 1341 | STEVEN JACOBS (WGI) | V4 | VARIOUS | 1429 |
+| 11/13/08 | 1420 | JESSICA WALLY (DAF) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1700 |
+| 11/13/08 | 1420 | SARAH KORN (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1700 |
+| 11/13/08 | 1436 | LLOYD SMITH (VILLIAN PEST CONTROL) | V1 | VARIOUS | 1528 |
+| 11/13/08 | 1745 | Estory Cowpes | LH3 | T-Special You Response | 1849 |
+| 11/13/08 | 1815 | Andrew Bennister on | V*11 | Credit proper - sentinel | 1916 |
+| 11/13/08 | | | | | |
+
+Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 540-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 13 of 34
+
+S.O.S. Page 13 of 34
+
+Solid Statement of Attorney
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|--------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 11/20/08 | 0925 | FREDERICK HUTCHINSON (AITY) | L2 | SA-DORM | 095 |
+| 11/20/08 | 0927 | SYSAN WINSTON (AITY) | L3 | VARIOUS | 1302 |
+| 11/20/08 | 0950 | MALIK HAJAN (P.D.) | PBJO | VARIOUS | 1030 |
+| 11/20/08 | 0952 | ANGELA HARWICK (DCF) | V7 | G-DORM | 1024 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1003 | MIRLANDE OSTING (TRINITY) | PBJO | Q-BLDG | 820 |
+| 11/20/08 | 12137 | SMITH, Black | V-2 | VULCAN PEST CONTROL (Admin) | 1355 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1250 | CONRAD JADDLE (PRE-TRIAL) | PBJO | C-DORM | 1311 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1300 | FRANK KESSLER (AITY) | L2 | T-DORM | 1353 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1302 | CK SCHAPPERT (NEATH DEPT.) | V7 | MEDICAL | 1435 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1314 | MARY WALLACE (MINISTRY) | C1 | RA-DORM | 1418 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1349 | TATIANA BERTJCH (P.D.) | PBJO | F-DORM | 152 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1400 | SHELA TIERNEY (FER. PROBATION) | V2 | RA-DORM | 1459 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1409 | AMY MORVE (AITY) | L2 | VARIOUS | 1440 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1415 | EDWARD GALANTE (AITY) | L2 | B-DORM | 1519 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1422 | BRIAN BALAGUERA (P.D.) | PBJO | VARIOUS | 1544 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1424 | JEWICA WALLY (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1700 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1424 | SARAH KORN (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1700 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1426 | ROBERT HUMES (DAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1600 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1529 | ARNOLD PROPPER (PARA-LEGAL) | L-1 | T-SPECIAL (ERITEIN, J) | 1708 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1800 | NEWMAN, LAWRENCE | L2 | T-SPECIAL (E preferred) | 1836 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1813 | Glover, MARTIN | V-1B | Drug Farm | 2000 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1814 | Allen, ANNE HE | V-1D | Drug Farm | 2001 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1815 | Bernstein, Andrew | V-2 | T-DORM | 1928 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1817 | CHANEY, W | AD | L-DORM (Thompson, L-AB) | 2008 |
+| 11/20/08 | 1820 | ALEXANDER, STEPHEN | V-3 | T-SPECIAL | |
+| 11/20/08 | 1844 | STEPHEN | | | |
+
+Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 540-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 34 PAGE 14 OF 505
+
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 11/26/08 | 1413 | ROBERT NUMES (DAF) | PB50 | DRUG FARM | |
+| 11/26/08 | 1417 | KENNETH NUXNOLD (JAAP) | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 16:55 |
+| 11/26/08 | 1419 | CARMEN CRUZ (JEHOVAH WITNESS) | C1 | L-DORM | 1:51 |
+| 11/26/08 | 1419 | MIRIAM PAGAN (JEHOVAH WITNESS) | C2 | L-DORM | 14:58 |
+| 11/26/08 | 1544 | ROBERT GERSDMANN (ASTY) | L1 | L-DORM | 14:58 |
+| 11/26/08 | 16220 | MR DISNEY 1 | V1 | L-DORM; F-DORM | 16:55 |
+| 11/26/08 | 1645 | MR POZOS | V2 | VILEGAN Paris Course | 16:53 |
+| 11/26/08 | 1645 | MR POZOS | C1 | PA-DE - DETERCENT. | 16:53 |
+| 11/26/08 | 1855 | MR COHAN | V12 | CLERCY - CLERCY | 19:59 |
+| 11/26/08 | 1855 | MR SUMNER | V17 | C-DORM | 20:04 |
+| 11/26/08 | 1855 | FORRIER TRUDGE | C2 | C-DORM | 20:01 |
+| 11/26/08 | 1920 | MR SUMNER | C2 | CLERCY | 19:59 |
+| 11/26/08 | 1945 | MR GIBSON (NA) | PB50 | VIABOOS DORM J-DORM | 21:00 |
+| 11/26/08 | | | | J/K | 2:02 |
+| 11/27/08 | 0140 | Phelps Walford | PB50 | Quebec | |
+| 11/27/08 | 0358 | Curtis Pinking | PB50 | Quebec | 1030 |
+| 11/27/08 | 0520 | Philippine Creen | PB50 | Quebec | 1140 |
+| 11/27/08 | 0834 | CHEVELLE HYTOWER (JAAP) | PB50 | Quebec | 1400 |
+| 11/27/08 | 0900 | PATRICIA NOWBY (TRINITY) | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 12:05 |
+| 11/27/08 | 1512 | DR STEPHEN ALEXANDER | V1 | Q-BLDG | 16:50 |
+| 11/27/08 | 1512 | STORY (OWLER (PARA-LEGAL) | V1 | T-SPECIAL | 17:03 |
+| 11/28/08 | 0905 | PATRICIA NOWBY (TRINITY) | V1 | T-SPECIAL | 16:04 |
+| 11/28/08 | 0906 | JON MAY (ASTY) | PB50 | Q-BLDG | 16:32 |
+| 11/28/08 | 0906 | RAFAEL ESCHDERO (FINTER PLATINE) | L-1 | SA-DORM | 11:05 |
+| 11/28/08 | 0937 | CHEVELLE HYTOWER (JAAP) | V-1 | SA-DORM | 11:05 |
+| 11/28/08 | 1156 | MIRIANDA OUTNIL (TRINITY) | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 12:20 |
+
+Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 540-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010 Page 15 of 34
+
+
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "**
+
+8
+
+ GUN CLUB STOCKADE BELLE GLADE DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|-----------|
+| 12-05-08 | 1235 | Scott Sale- Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Rosebloom, Shannon (RB09). | 1331 |
+| 12-05-08 | 1314 | [REDACTED] Varju- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1508 |
+| 12-05-08 | 1330 | [REDACTED] Kessler- Attorney | L-3 | I/M: Barnes, Andre and Medical Records. | 1432 |
+| 12-05-08 | 1335 | Jeffrey Ivory- Pre-Trial Services | PBSO | A/B-Dorm to see inmates. | 1346 |
+| 12-05-08 | 1354 | Marc Tracy- Public Defender | PBSO | F-Dorm to see inmate. | 1610 |
+| 12-05-08 | 1411 | Timothy Justin- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area | 1653 |
+| 12-05-08 | 1417 | Robert Humes- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1657 |
+| 12-05-08 | 1421 | Sarah Korn- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1657 |
+| 12-05-08 | 1421 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1657 |
+| 12-05-08 | 1444 | Conrad Saddler- Pre-Trial Serv. | PBSO | I/M's: Denson (T-Dorm) and McLean (RA05). | 1657 |
+| 12-05-08 | 1551 | Scott G. Penney- Public Defender | PBSO | L. Dorm | 1511 |
+| 12-05-08 | 1755 | MR GLOUGE TEACHER | V17 | Drug Farm | 1637 |
+| 12-05-08 | 1755 | MS AZLER TEACHER | V8 | Drug Farm | 1932 |
+| 12-05-08 | 1755 | MR GERY ART TEACHER | V9 | Drug Farm | 1932 |
+| 12-05-08 | 2000 | MR STEPHENS | V8 | Drug Farm | 1932 |
+| 12-05-08 | 2000 | MR ZHURAVLYOV | V17 | Azumati - J/K | 2110 |
+| 12-05-08 | 2000 | MR ABIEGA | V9 | Azumati J/K | 2110 |
+| 12-05-08 | 2000 | MR MILLER | V10 | Azumati J/K | 2110 |
+| 12-05-08 | 2000 | MR JERMAN | V5 | Azumati J/K | 2110 |
+| 12-05-08 | 2208 | JOSY County Como (Azumati) | - | County Como - CHAR KITCHEN | 2226 |
+| 12-06-08 | 140 | MR PINTNEY + KLINTY | PBSO | HITCHEN | 1047 |
+| 12-06-08 | 717 | PATRICIA EDELMAN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1115 1509 |
+| 12-06-08 | 745 | ROBERT HUMES SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1115 |
+| 12-06-08 | 0756 | Alan Cutler- Process Server | V-12 | I/M: Esptein, Jeffrey (T-Special) | DROO |
+| 12-06-08 | 0918 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity County | - | | |
+
+Case 9-08-07-80119-RAM Document 540-4 Entered on FLSD Cooker 05/07/2010 Page 16 of 34
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE CENTRAL CONTROL
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|--------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 12/11/08 | 1124 | WALTER LOVETT | VI | STAFF DINING ROOM | 1350 |
+| 12/11/08 | 1131 | ENRICO JOBRINO (PLETIRED) | PAJO | STAFF DINING | 1303 |
+| 12/11/08 | 12105 | QUINN, SEAN (Para-Leysel) | L-1 | Inmate Morrison, A. L-Dorm Atlanta, B-Dorm | 1303 |
+| 12/11/08 | 12166 | SADDLER, COLRAD | PASO | Inmate Westerly Kevisha L-Dorm | 1240 |
+| 12/11/08 | 1234 | MICHAEL SCHUITT (ATT) | VI | F-Dorm | 1237 |
+| 12/11/08 | 1250 | JOSEPH MARYLINA (PD) | PAJO | F-Dorm | 1358 |
+| 12/11/08 | 1300 | JOSEPH VARSU (JAPP) | PAJO | DRUG FARM | 1420 |
+| 12/11/08 | 1310 | MARY WALLACE (MINNITKY) | VI | LIFE SKILL | 1602 |
+| 12/11/08 | 1417 | JESSICA WALLY (DAF) | VI | DRUG FARM | 1344 |
+| 12/11/08 | 1417 | JARAH KORN (DAF) | PAJO | DRUG FARM | 1265 |
+| 12/11/08 | 1518 | SCOTT BERRY (ATT) | VI | KB-Dorm | 1653 |
+| 12/11/08 | 1522 | DANIEL MEDINA (P.D.) | VI | VARIOUS | 1662 |
+| 12/11/08 | 1527 | LOYD SMITH (VULCAN EST) | VI | VARIOUS | 1656 |
+| 12/11/08 | 1545 | DRNOLD PROSPERI ([REDACTED] - UEGAL) | VI | FURNISHED (EPITEINS) | 1605 |
+| 12/11/08 | 1815 | PAR BLOOMBAN (BLOOMBAN) | VII | T-Dorm | 1630 |
+| 12-11-08 | 1900 | Authur Schmitt (Clergy) | PASO | L-Dorm | 1923 |
+| 12/11/08 | 1900 | JOHN Schmitt (Clergy) | PASO | L-Dorm | 2015 |
+| 12/11/08 | 2000 | Apple Meadow (PA) | VII | T-Dorm | 2015 |
+| 12/11/08 | 0130 | Custis Pinture | PASO | T-Dorm | 2057 |
+| 12/11/08 | 0530 | Elizabeth Corper | PASO | Trinity Staff - Quebec | 1042 |
+| 12/11/08 | 0728 | Authur Tony | PASO | Trinity Staff | 1437 |
+| 12/11/08 | 0728 | Carol Bonstepin | PASO | Drug Farm | 1615 |
+| 12/11/08 | 0735 | Ettinger Barbara | PASO | Drug Farm | 1605 |
+| 12/11/08 | 0745 | Sister Penniton | PASO | Drug Farm | 1605 |
+| 12/11/08 | 0750 | Julie Adams | PASO | Drug Farm | 1605 |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|--------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 12/18/08 | 1121 | KENNETH CINNERS (U.J. (W) DOM) | V2 | FATAKE BOOKING | 1158 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1204 | JOSEPH PAPA (ATM) | L1 | F-DORM (BAGLEY, J.) | 1306 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1222 | CONRAD SADDLER (PRE-TRIAL) | PBJO | F-DORM (TERQUE, L.) | 1277 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1268 | Joseph Vanu | PBSO | SAAD | 1605 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1306 | Mary Lee Wollace | V12 | Life Skills | 1437 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1332 | CHRISTOPHER DAWSON (BONYWING) | V1 | FATAKE BOOKING | 1420 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1348 | ROOM LANGINO (P.D.) | PBJO | F-DORM (CHART, D.) | 1427 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1354 | LOYD SMITH (VULCAN AGT.) | V2 | VARIOUS | 1430 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1401 | NOBLE PARJONS (P.D.) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1519 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1411 | SALAH KORN (OAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1516 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1411 | JESSICA WALLY (OAF) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1548 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1416 | KENNETH AUXHOLD (SAAP) | PBJO | DRUG FARM | 1605 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1437 | CHRISTOPHER NAPORD (ATM) | L1 | SA-18 | |
+| 12/18/08 | 1440 | LONARDO TARBORDA (P.D.) | PBJO | M-DORM | |
+| 12/18/08 | 1448 | EVELYN PENNINGTON (P.D.) | L12 | F-DORM (MARFIL, F.) | |
+| 12/18/08 | 1535 | STORY COWELL (PARA-LEGAL) | L1 | T-SPECIAL (EPUTE, N. J.) | |
+| 12/18/08 | 1815- | ANDREW BRANDTIN (READITY LEAT) | V-2 | + - DORM | |
+| 12/18/08 | 1817 | ATTY, BRIAN M. BOLAGUREA | L-1 | VARIOUS DORM'S | 1819 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1835 | ARTHUR SCHMIDT (CLARKY) | PBSO | RB - DORM | 1954 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1835 | STORY SCHMIDT (CLARKY) | PBSO | RB - DORM | 2055 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1847 | HOTTRY [REDACTED] KILL | V-2 | + - DORM | 2058 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1850 | DR. STEWART SCHAUBER | V-2 | + - DORM | 2163 |
+| 12/18/08 | 6130 | Mr. Curtis Pinckney Trinity | PBSO | Kitchen | 2135 |
+| 12/18/08 | 0716 | Mr. Arthur Troy / SAAP | PBSO | Drug farm | 1030 |
+| 12/18/08 | 0720 | Mrs. Patricia Edelman / DAF | PBSO | Drug farm | 1128 |
+| 12/18/08 | 0727 | Cathin Bonndon / SAAP | PBSO | Drug farm | 1120 |
+
+
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|----------|
+| 12/18/08 | 1655 | MR. SORENSON (PUBLIC) | PBSO | A- 1/M EVELAND / T-TIMOR | 1750 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1800 | MR. GLOTZER (EXECUTED) | VP | DRUG FARM | 1930 |
+| 12/18/08 | 1805 | MR. PRUSEL (TRUSTEE) | VID | DRUG FARM | 1930 |
+| 12/18/08 | 2000 | MR. BRUGERS | VID | | 2010 |
+| 12/18/08 | 2000 | MR. STEPHENS | VT | | 2010 |
+| 12/18/08 | 2000 | MR. KING | VI | DRUG FARM | 2010 |
+| 12/18/08 | 2000 | MR. MILLER | VI | | 2010 |
+| 12/18/08 | 2000 | MR. MOCKHO | VI | | 2010 |
+| 12/18/08 | 2000 | MR. COOPERS | VI | | 2010 |
+| 12/18/08 | 2000 | MR. PRICEGA | VI | | 2010 |
+| 12/18/08 | 2000 | MR. ZIMMERLY | VI | | 2010 |
+| 12/20/08 | 0250 | MR. CURTIS BIKNEY (TRUSTEE/STAFF) | PBSO | Q-Bldg. (KITCHEN) | 2020 |
+| 12/20/08 | 773 | JACK (PLUMBING) | PBSO | | 1020 |
+| 12/20/08 | 739 | ROBERT HUMES SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1113 |
+| 12/20/08 | 0902 | Mirlande Osting- SAAP | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1700 |
+| 12/20/08 | 1002 | Alberto Delpaz- State of Fl. Civil Reg | L-4 | I/M: Echols, Trey (A-Dorm). | 1024 |
+| 12/20/08 | 1010 | Brenda Nugrent- Trinity Staff | PBSO | En route to indoor visitation. | 1835 |
+| 12/20/08 | 1254 | D/S [REDACTED] - Deputy | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1309 |
+| 12/20/08 | 1238 | Julia [REDACTED] - SAAP | PBSO | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1800 |
+| 12/20/08 | 1511 | Story Cowles- Paralegal | L-5 | | 1003 |
+| 12/21/08 | 134 | EVELYN WILFORD + TRINITY SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1655 |
+| 12/21/08 | 730 | ARTHUR TROY SAAP | PBSO | HITCHEN | 1725 |
+| 12/21/08 | 0816 | Angeliki Weissinger- SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1725 |
+| 12/21/08 | 0905 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1655 |
+| 12/21/08 | 0905 | John Habicht- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1725 |
+| 12/21/08 | 1003 | Brenda Nugrent - Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1725 |
+
+CASE # 0000000000000000 ENTERED ON FLSD DECRET 05/09/2019 Page 49 of 54
+
+hgsahgsinc.com
+
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|---------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|----------|
+| 12/21/08 | 1200 | Wilfredo- Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Zoraida, Nino (L-Dorm). | |
+| 12/21/08 | 1248 | Deneka Cummings- Public Def. | PBSO | I/M: Knowles, Alvin (T-48). | 1241 |
+| 12/21/08 | 1526 | Catherine Igo- Public Defender | PBSO | I/M: Carrero, Kevin (B-Dorm). | 1424 |
+| 12/21/08 | 1736 | SIOR- COWLES (PARALEGAL) | L-1 | I/M EPSTEIN T-SPECIAL | 1547 |
+| 12/21/08 | 1950 | JAMES SMITH | V-9 | T-DORM AA Meeting | 2005 |
+| 12/22/08 | 142 | EVELYN WILFORD TRIVITY | PBSO | HITCHEN | 2104 |
+| 12/22/08 | 646 | FLORISETH GREEN TRIVITY | PBSO | HITCHEN | 1424 |
+| 12/22/08 | 709 | ARTHUR TROY SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1424 |
+| 12/22/08 | 725 | MS BRONSTEN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1620 |
+| 12/22/08 | 730 | MR ITABICHIT TRIVITY | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1620 |
+| 12/22/08 | 735 | MS ADAMS SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1534 |
+| 12/22/08 | 746 | SUSAN WILHOFF SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1107 |
+| 12/22/08 | 746 | MR WEST SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1711 |
+| 12/22/08 | 746 | MR GARY GIBSON SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1549 |
+| 12/22/08 | 740 | TIMOTHY JUSTIN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1452 |
+| 12/22/08 | 0847 | Ogelsby- Public Defender | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1535 |
+| 12/22/08 | 0901 | Patricia Edelman- SAAP | PBSO | Various dorms to see inmates. | 0901 |
+| 12/22/08 | 0912 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1157 |
+| 12/22/08 | 0944 | Dante Medina- Public Defender | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1730 |
+| 12/22/08 | 1010 | Frederick Hutchinson- Attorney | L-1 | I/M: Mikus, Erica (SA18). | 1020 |
+| 12/22/08 | 1014 | Randall Wilson- Detect Delray Bch PD | V-12 | I/M: Rockerman, Randi (L-Dorm). | 1034 |
+| 12/22/08 | 1014 | James Wintemute- Detect Delray Bch PD | V-9 | I/M: Deiby (F-Dorm) in Intake Bkkg. | 1041 |
+| 12/22/08 | 1143 | Julia SAAP | PBSO | I/M: Deiby (F-Dorm) in Intake Bkkg. | 1041 |
+| 12/22/08 | 1202 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1733 |
+| 12/22/08 | 1226 | Patricia Edelman- SAAP | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1900 |
+| 12/22/08 | 1300 | Edward Smith- Doctor | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1700 |
+
+Report docket contained in this document.
+
+34
+
+**CENTRAL CONTROL**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|----------|
+| 12-24 | 1477 | SEAKREST, BETH | VI2 | C-Dorm | 211 |
+| 12-24 | 1945 | HOOPER, Robert | V6 | J-L Dorm | 211 |
+| 12-25-08 | 0145 | Evelyn Wifford | | Trinity | 211 |
+| 12-25-08 | 0539 | Elizabeth Corn | | Trinity | |
+| 12-25-08 | 0732 | Patricia Eldeman | | | |
+| 12-25-08 | 0834 | John Habicht | | Drug Farm | |
+| 12-25-08 | 0911 | Patrecha Newby | PBSO | Q-Building | 1417 |
+| 12-25-08 | 1045 | Mirande Osting | PBSO | Q-Building | 1338 |
+| 12-25-08 | 1239 | Stephen Alexander | PBSO | Q-Building | 1632 |
+| 12-25-08 | 1504 | Story Crowler | VI | T-Special | 18410 |
+| 12-26-08 | 0115 | Bronstein Cailtin | VI | T-Special | 1425 |
+| 12-26-08 | 0734 | Patricia Eldeman | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1809 |
+| 12-26-08 | 0747 | Alan | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1132 |
+| 12-26-08 | 0747 | Gibson | PBSO | SAAD | 1201 |
+| 12-26-08 | 0135 | Evelyn Wifford | PBSO | Data | |
+| 12-26-08 | 0750 | Michael West-SAAD | PBSO | Trinity | 1104 |
+| 12-26-08 | 0952 | Susan Wilkoff-SAAD | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1050 |
+| 12-26-08 | 0910 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1047 |
+| 12-26-08 | 0915 | William Paul- Public Defender | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1715 |
+| 12-26-08 | 0924 | Timothy Justin- SAAD | PBSO | I/M's: Datus and Washington (D-Dorm). | 1640 |
+| 12-26-08 | 1142 | Bob Stancil- Intercity | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 0948 |
+| 12-26-08 | 1158 | Cailtin Bronstein- SAAD | PBSO | Sallyport to inspected (02) Vehicles. | 1403 |
+| 12-26-08 | 1212 | Mirlande Osting- SAAD TRINITY | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1201 |
+| 12-26-08 | 1437 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1436 |
+| 12-26-08 | 1437 | Sarah Korn- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1830 |
+| 12-26-08 | | | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1706 |
+
+SOS-34
+Safety Statement
+of Sheriff
+
+Input: special.com
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|--------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|----------|
+| 12-26-08 | 1954 | GENNADY ZHURAVL (ALUMNI) | V-5 | DRUG FARM J+K | 2106 |
+| 12-26-08 | 1954 | MIGUEL ABIEGA (ALUMNI) | V-1 | DRUG FARM J+K | 2106 |
+| 12-26-08 | 1954 | JOEL MILLER (ALUMNI) | V-2 | DRUG FARM J+K | 2106 |
+| 12-26-08 | 1954 | ANTONIO WELLS (ALUMNI) | V-3 | DRUG FARM J+K | 2106 |
+| 12-26-08 | 1954 | KEVIN LARKIN (ALUMNI) | V-4 | DRUG FARM J+K | 2106 |
+| 12-26-08 | 1954 | THOMAS FIORINI (ALUMNI) | V-6 | DRUG FARM J+K | 2106 |
+| 12-27-08 | 711 | ELIZABETH GREEN (TRINITY) | PB50 | HITCHEN | 2106 |
+| 12-27-08 | 726 | GARY GIPSON SAAP | PB50 | DRUG FARM D/L | 1024 |
+| 12-27-08 | 738 | ROBERT HUNES SAAP | PB50 | (J/H) DRUG FARM | ----- |
+| 12-27-08 | 0807 | ANGELIKA WEISSINGER EMP | PB50 | Drug Farm area. | 1117 |
+| 12-26-08 | 0859 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1722 |
+| 12-26-08 | 0903 | Stephen Alexander- Pysch Dr. | V-12 | Q-Bldg. | 1630 |
+| 12-26-08 | 1003 | Brenda Nugrent- Trinity Staff | PBSO | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special) | 1053 |
+| 12-26-08 | 1234 | Gary Gipson- SAAP | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1821 |
+| 12-26-08 | 1540 | KRNOLD P. PROSPERI- Paralagol | L-3 | Drug Farm area. | 1247 |
+| 12-26-08 | 1745 | Ariafat Prince (men 2 men) | V-2 | I/M: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY (T-Special) | 1050 |
+| | | | | Q-darm & T-darm | 2007 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+CASE 9:08-cv-08119-KAIM Document 54034 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2019 Page 22 of 34
+
+**DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS**
+**OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG**
+
+**CENTRAL**
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|---------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|----------|
+| 12/28/08 | 0835 | Evelyn Wilford | PB50 | Quebec | 0935 |
+| 12/28/08 | 0742 | SUSAN WIKOFF | PB50 | DRUG FARM | 1041 |
+| 12/28/08 | 0848 | James L. Smith - Alumnu | V-12 | JIK - Dorm | 1004 |
+| 12/28/08 | 0901 | Mirlande Osting - Trinity Staff | PB80 | Q-Bildg. | 1003 |
+| 12/28/08 | 0941 | Story Cowles - Paralegal | L-3 | Ilm: Epstein, Teffrey (T-special) | 1751 |
+| 12/28/08 | 1002 | Brenda Nugrent - Trinity Staff | PB80 | Q-Bildg. | 1522 |
+| 12-28-08 | 1730 | Cowles, Steel | L-3 | T-special Tosee Epstein | 1830 |
+| 12-28-08 | 2000 | Yorlano, Eric "AA" | V-3 | T-dom | 1924 |
+| | | | | | 205 |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+| | | | | | |
+
+
+
+ GUN CLUB
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ BELLE GLADE
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 2-21-09 | 0120 | LURTIS PINKEY | PB50 | Q-BUILDING - KITCHEN | 1029 |
+| 2-21-09 | 0726 | ROBERT HUMES | PB50 | TO - DRUG FARM | 1116 |
+| 2-21-09 | 0907 | LINDA LEARY | PB50 | TO - R - DORM | 0936 |
+| 2-21-09 | 0907 | MIRLANDE OSTING | PB50 | Q-BUILDING - KITCHEN | 1739 |
+| 2-21-09 | 0957 | BRENDA NUBENT | PB50 | Q-BUILDING - KITCHEN | 1822 |
+| 2-21-09 | 1213 | MS. TALLEY | V-1 | INTAKE - INVESTIGATOR | 1336 |
+| 2-21-09 | 1213 | MS. MARIE | V-2 | INTAKE - INVESTIGATOR | 1336 |
+| 2-21-09 | 1213 | MS. PACKER | V-3 | INTAKE - INVESTIGATOR | 1336 |
+| 2-21-09 | 1806 | GERALD FULLER | V-1 | TO - C - DORM AND T - DORM | 1930 |
+| 2-21-09 | 1806 | GEORGE McFADDEN | V-2 | TO C - DORM AND T - DORM | 1930 |
+| 2-21-09 | 1806 | MICHELE CARTER | V-3 | TO C - DORM AND T - DORM | 1930 |
+| 2-22-09 | 0135 | Evelyn Wilford | PB50 | TO Kitchen (Trinity Staff) | 941 |
+| 2/22/09 | 855 | Hytowek (SAAP) | PB50 | Drug Form | 1648 |
+| 2/22/09 | 907 | M OSTEING (Trinity) | PB50 | Q Building | 1713 |
+| 2/22/09 | 945 | ms. Nugent (Trinity) | PB50 | Q - Building | 1754 |
+| 2/22/09 | 1050 | Adams (SAAP) | PB50 | Drug Form | 1648 |
+| 2/22/09 | 1158 | Behr, R. (Attorney) | L-1 | L-Dorm I/M: Dibrino, Alisha | 1247 |
+| 2/22/09 | 1230 | Williams Young, Joul (Attorneys) | PB50 | B-Dorm I/M: Hutcher, Allen | 1413 |
+| 2-22-09 | 1451 | Ms. CoQueen (Atty.) | L-1 | T-Spec. Costein, J. | 2039 |
+| 2-22-09 | 1945 | JOHNNY PERKINS | V-1 | TO T - DORM (AA) | 2103 |
+| 02.23.09 | 0133 | EVELYN WILFORD | PB50 | Kitchen | 1036 |
+| 02.23.09 | 0645 | ELIZABETH GREEN JUSTIN | PB50 | Kitchen | 1432 |
+| 02.23.09 | 0730 | Timothy Jones (SAAP) | PB50 | Drug Form | 1135 |
+| 02.23.09 | 0730 | Allrichter Troy (SAAP) | PB50 | Drug Form | 1107 |
+| 02.23.09 | 0721 | Daniella Eddinson (Civil) | PB50 | Drug Form | 1621 |
+
+Case #: 0000000000000000 Entered on Friday 05/07/2019 Page 24 of 34
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS**
+
+**OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG**
+
+CENTRAL CONTROL
+
+ GUN CLUB STOCKADE BELLE GLADE DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|-----------------|--------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|----------|
+| 2-6-09 | 1949 | MICGIEL ABIECA | V-8 | DRUG FARM - ALUMNI | 2106 |
+| 2-6-09 | 1949 | GENNADI ZHURAVLIN | V-9 | DRUG FARM - ALUMNI | 2106 |
+| 2-6-09 | 1954 | THOMAS FIORINI | V-10 | DRUG FARM - ALUMNI | 2106 |
+| 2-6-09 | 1954 | JASON YOHE- | V-11 | DRUG FARM - ALUMNI | 2106 |
+| 2-6-09 | 1954 | KEVIN LARKIN | V-12 | DRUG FARM - ALUMNI | 2106 |
+| 2-7-09 | 13 2 | MR PINKINEY TRINITY | PBSO | HITCHEN | 1043 |
+| 2-7-09 | 726 | ROBERT HUNE SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1125 |
+| 2-7-09 | 0855 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1709 |
+| 2-7-09 | 1009 | Brenda Nugrent- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1825 |
+| 2-7-09 | 1157 | Story Cowles - Paralegal | L-2 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special) | 11655 |
+| 2-7-09 | 1457 | Jack Pleischman- Atty | L-1 | I/M: Joyner, Randau (B-Dorm) | 1512 |
+| 2-7-09 | 1518 | Julia Alams- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area | 1829 |
+| 2-7-09 | 1816 | PRINCE ARAFAT | V-1 | T-DORM - (MEN TO MEN) | 2035 |
+| 2-7-09 | 1816 | GEORGE MEFADDEN | V-2 | T-DORM - (MEN TO MEN) | 2035 |
+| 2-7-09 | 1954 | NEHLSEN LACHMUND | V-4 | DRUG FARM (NA) | 2105 |
+| 2-7-09 | 1954 | ROBERT MEGRAN | V-3 | DRUG FARM (NA) | 2105 |
+| 02-08-09 | 0135 | Curtis Pinkney | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1028 |
+| 02-08-09 | 0136 | Arthur Troy / SAAP | PBSO | DRUG Farm | 1155 |
+| 02-08-09 | 0903 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1751 |
+| 02-08-09 | 0949 | Brenda Nugrent- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1829 |
+| 02-08-09 | 1324 | Samuel Marshall- Attorney | L-2 | I/M: Crawford, Khory (F-Dorm). | 1419 |
+| 02-08-09 | 1407 | Arnold Prosperi- Paralegal | L-1 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1541 |
+| 02-08-09 | 1421 | Arthur Troy- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1555 |
+| 2-8-09 | 1541 | Story Cowles - Paralegal | L-2 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special) | 1845 |
+
+ GUN CLUB STOCKADE BELLE GLADE DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 1-31-09 | 1334 | Mr. Weeks (DeA) | V-4 | Intake Area | 1640 |
+| 1-31-09 | 1334 | Mr. Kastrenakes | V-5 | Intake Area | 1516 |
+| 1-31-09 | 1334 | Mr. Bizek (WPPA) | V-8 | Intake Area | 1640 |
+| 1-31-09 | 1334 | Mr. Buens (USD of J) | V-3 | Intake Area | 1640 |
+| 1-31-09 | 1334 | Mr. Carlton (U.S.D. of J) | V-2 | Intake Area | 1640 |
+| 1-31-09 | 1335 | David Damith | L-1 | Turner Edge & Down | 9005 |
+| 1-31-09 | 1300 | Stry Cowler | L-2 | T-Spec. Epstein | 2116 |
+| 1-31-09 | 2151 | Richard Fendler | L-1 | T-Down Cisheros Velacutine | 2116 |
+| 2/1/09 | 0140 | Evelyn Wilford | PBSO | Drebec - Trinity Street | 1048 |
+| 2/1/09 | 0123 | B. Edtinger | PBSO | Drug farm | 1130 |
+| 2/1/09 | 915 | Ms. Osting (Trinity) | PBSO | Q-Building | 1640 |
+| 2-1/09 | 1000 | Ms. Nugent (Trinity) | PBSO | Q-Building | 1806 |
+| 2-1-09 | 1015 | Mr. Salerno (Atty.) | L-1 | T-Down, E/m Carballose, A: | 1410 |
+| 2-1-09 | 1310 | Patricia Edelman | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1555 |
+| 2-1-09 | 1570 | Mr. Cowles (Atty.) | L-1 | T-Spec. E/m Epstein, J: | 1828 |
+| 2-2-09 | 0145 | Evelyn Wilford | PBSO | Trinity Street - Drebec | 1027 |
+| 0724 | 0724 | Allen Gobon | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1559 |
+| 2-2-09 | 0720 | Carol Bernstein | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1612 |
+| 2-2-09 | 0721 | Taylor Arithur | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1615 |
+| 2-2-09 | 0722 | Peterton Chenelle | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1635 |
+| 2-2-09 | 0645 | Edward Creen | PBSO | Drug Farm (Trinity) | 1436 |
+| 2-2-09 | 0740 | Sister Barnster | PBSO | Clergy | 1615 |
+| 2-2-09 | 0742 | Susan Wilcoff | PBSO | Drug Farm | |
+| 2-2-09 | 0743 | Patricia Edelman | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1607 |
+| 2-2-09 | 0757 | Mr. & Patricia Edelman | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1705 |
+
+
+
+ GUN CLUB STOCKADE BELLE GLADE DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|----------|
+| 1-30-09 | 14:52 | Dande Medina (P.D) | PBSO | Pavel Legues (Ins) Dicola Moses M | 16:04 |
+| 1-30-09 | 15:47 | Seoga Genney (P.D) | PBSO | M.S.R. | 16:43 |
+| 1-30-09 | 15:53 | Malik Hasan (PD) | PBSO | Blanc Valarie in M dorm | 16:15 |
+| 1-30-09 | 17:02 | Story Coulles (PD) | T-Spec | Epstein | 17:54 |
+| 1-30-09 | 17:37 | Bre Christenber fladded PD | F-Drug | Brent Moses | 17:58 |
+| 1-30-09 | 16:15 | Annette Allen | GED | Drug Farm | 19:30 |
+| 1-30-09 | 18:15 | Clark Gelfond | GED | Drug Farm | 19:30 |
+| 1-30-09 | 18:15 | Marvin Glover | GED | Drug Farm | 19:30 |
+| 1-30-09 | 19:30 | Harold Alunter vi Alumniks | V-1 | Drug Farm | 19:30 |
+| 1-30-09 | 19:42 | Allyne Drame Dianne McKinney | V-4 | Drug Farm | 20:02 |
+| 1-30-09 | 19:45 | Joel Wayne Alaman Alum | V-2 | Drug Farm | 20:02 |
+| 1-30-09 | 19:45 | Joel McKinney Alum | V-3 | Drug Farm | 20:02 |
+| 1-30-09 | 19:45 | Thomas Raganiski Alum | V-4 | Drug Farm | 21:02 |
+| 1-30-09 | 19:45 | Michael Giannetti Alum | V-5 | Drug Farm | 21:02 |
+| 1-30-09 | 19:50 | Phytongo Biells Alum | V-19 | Drug Farm | 21:02 |
+| 1-30-09 | 19:50 | Gennadey Zhuravlov Alum | V-8 | Drug Farm | 21:02 |
+| 1-30-09 | 19:50 | Michael Abresa Alum | V-10 | Drug Farm | 21:02 |
+| 1-31-09 | 12:55 | EVELYN WINFORD TRAINITY | PBSO | Kitchen | 21:02 |
+| 1/31/09 | 7:40 | JESSICA WALLY SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 10:06 |
+| 1/31/09 | 9:12 | Mr. Osting (Trainity) | PBSO | Q-Building | 11:25 |
+| 1/31/09 | 9:25 | Mr. Pagan (Atty.) | V-1 | T-Spec. Mr. J. Epstein | 11:10 |
+| 1/31/09 | 10:45 | Mr. West (SAAP) | PBSO | T-Docm | 11:42 |
+| 1/31/09 | 12:07 | Story Coulles - Paralegal | L-3 | Ilm: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special) | 11:46 |
+| 1/31/09 | 12:07 | Jessica (Adiwell - Paralegal) | L-4 | Ilm: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special) | 11:39 |
+
+| DATE | TIME IN |
+|----------|---------|
+| 1/25/09 | 1:27 |
+| 11/25/09 | 0914 |
+| 11/25/09 | 0922 |
+| 11/25/09 | 0926 |
+| 11/25/09 | 0947 |
+| 11/25/09 | 1413 |
+| 11/25/09 | 1426 |
+| 11/25/09 | 2000 |
+
+ GUN CLUB
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ BELLE GLADE
+
+ DRUG FARM
+
+VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION
+*Evelyn Wilkard*
+*Darren Indyke - Morney*
+*Mirlande Doling - Trinity*
+*Susan Wilkes - SAN*
+*Story Cowles - Paralegal*
+*Branda Nugrent - Trinity*
+*Gail Bremner - Canne Corporations*
+*Cathy Tao - Public Defender*
+*ERIC YORLANO*
+
+PASS #
+
+PB80
+
+L-2
+
+PB50
+
+PB80
+
+Q-4
+
+PB50
+
+V-12
+
+PB80
+
+V-1
+
+NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING
+
+Q - Bldg
+
+IIM: EPSLEIN, Jeffrey CT-Special
+
+Q - Bldg.
+ Drug Farm area
+
+IIM: EPSLEIN Jeffrey CT-Special
+
+Q - Bldg.
+ Enroute to C Dorm and JIK-Dorm
+
+IIM: Dye, Jennifer (L-Dorm)
+
+I-JOK (AA)
+
+TIME OUT
+
+8:54
+
+1:40
+
+1:42
+
+1:40
+
+1845
+
+1432
+
+1442
+
+2107
+
+
+
+ GUN CLUB CENTRAL CONTROL
+ STOCKADE BELLE GLADE
+ DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|---------|---------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 1-24-09 | 1810 | Mc Fadden George "M" | V-4 | C-dom | 2:04 |
+| 1-24-09 | 1815 | Alexander Stephen (DR) | L-1 | T-special tosset Jackey "J" | 1:55 |
+| 1-24-04 | 1922 | Carles Stone "Richard" | L-2 | T-special "Epstein Jackey " | 2:40 |
+| 1-24-01 | 2000 | McGraw, Robert "AA" | V-5 | J/K "meeting" | 2:10 |
+| 1-24-01 | 2000 | Mayo Reumard "AA" | V-6 | J/K "meeting" | 2:10 |
+
+Central Control
+
+GUN CLUB Stockade BELLE GLADE DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|-------|----------|
+| | | | | D | N | |
+| 11/16/09 | 2000 | McLabor Uniteds | U-3 | Allenne Meeting - J Clearworm | 2110 | |
+| 11/16/09 | 2000 | Thomas Tibrine | U-4 | Allenne Meeting - J Clearworm | 2110 | |
+| 11/16/09 | 2010 | Generaldy Zhurcadyze | U-5 | Allenne Meeting - J Clearworm | 2110 | |
+| 11/16/09 | 2000 | Michael Albert | U-6 | Allenne Meeting - J Clearworm | 2110 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 01:29 | Michartis Pinknel | PBSO | Immity Staff (Kitchen) | 1139 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 01:32 | Sessica Madda | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1110 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 08:44 | Sharon Williams - United Del | PBSO | T. Borin | 09:02 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 09:09 | Mirlande Dsting - Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q- Bildg. | 07:24 | |
+| 11/17/09 | | Brenda Nugrent " | PBSO | Q- Bildg. | 18:35 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 09:55 | Brenda Nuddebrook - Alexander | U-13 | Brenda to Lim Dorm | 13:00 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 09:55 | Amistopher Maddebrook - Alexander | U-13 | Brenda to Lim Dorm | 13:00 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 12:28 | Christopher Pagano - Baralegal | L-9 | Lim Epstein, Jeffrey G Special | 13:56 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 12:44 | Joseph Pagano - Baralegal | PBSO | Rog Match | 14:49 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 14:32 | Raymond Boloon - Manager | PBSO | Rog Match | 14:49 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 14:32 | Ganstrado Badiguez PC Tech | PBSO | Rog Match | 14:49 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 14:32 | Ganstrado Badiguez PC Tech | PBSO | T-Special | 09:57 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 14:32 | Lawles Storley (pret legal) | PBSO | A-clorm | 09:57 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 14:32 | Lawles Storley (Attorney) | PBSO | A-clorm | 09:57 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 14:32 | David Comitts (Attorney) | PBSO | Condore | 10:10 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 14:32 | David Comitts (Attorney) | PBSO | Condore | 10:10 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 14:32 | Julia Adams - SMG | PBSO | Drug Farm area | 09:36 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 14:32 | Mirlande Dsting - Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q- Bildg. | 09:36 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 14:32 | Brenda Nugrent - Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q- Bildg. | 09:36 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 14:32 | Arnold P. Prosperi - Attorney | L-1 | Lim: Brend Jeffrey (T-Special) | 12:55 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 12:01 | Arnold P. Prosperi - Attorney | L-1 | Lim: Brend Jeffrey (T-Special) | 12:51 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 12:01 | Thomas Moss - Attorney | PBSO | Various Dyrms | 15:04 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 12:01 | Marbana Don Baptiste - PB | PBSO | Various Dyrms | 09:27 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 12:01 | Marbana Don Baptiste - PB | L-2 | T-Special - J/A Epstein | 10:27 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 12:01 | Storley Collees (Participant) | PBSO | Q- Bildg | 09:27 | |
+| 11/17/09 | 12:01 | Arnold Wilford (Trinity Staff) | PBSO | Q- Bildg | 09:27 | |
+
+**PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG
+" CENTRAL CONTROL "**
+
+ GUN CLUB STOCKADE BELLE GLADE DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 1-9-09 | 1955 | MIGUEL ABIEGA | V-8 | (ALYMNI) DRIG FARM | 2108 |
+| 1-10-09 | 030 | Curtis Pinckney | PBSO | Kitchen | 1048 |
+| 1-10-09 | 0140 | Jessica Welly/DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1130 |
+| 01-10-09 | 0908 | Linda Leary- United Delivernace Min. | PBSO | En route to G/H-Dorm. | 0930 |
+| 01-10-09 | 0910 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1726 |
+| 01-10-09 | 1012 | Brenda Nugrent- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1828 |
+| 01-10-09 | 1106 | Julia [REDACTED] -SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1601 |
+| 01-10-09 | 1207 | Michaelanne [REDACTED] - State of Fl Conf. | V-8 | I/M's: Ahmed/Palmer/Ramdhanie/Cunningham. | 1309 |
+| 01-10-09 | 1207 | Stephanie Elsner- State of Fl Conf. | V-10 | " " " " " | 1309 |
+| 01-10-09 | 1207 | Pagano- Paralegal | L-4 | I/M: Esptein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1503 |
+| 01-10-09 | 1259 | [REDACTED] | V-2 | T-DORM C-DORM | 2024 |
+| 01-10-09 | 1807 | GERALD FULLER | V-5 | T-DORM C-DORM | 2024 |
+| 01-10-09 | 1807 | GEORGE McFADDEN | V-6 | T-DORM C-DORM | 2024 |
+| 01-10-09 | 1807 | PRINCE ARAFAT | V-7 | T-DORM C-DORM | 2024 |
+| 01-10-09 | 1807 | MICHELLE CARTER | L-4 | T-SPECIAL - I/M EPSTEIN | 2134 |
+| 01-10-09 | 1815 | STORY COWLES | V-3 | DRIG FARM - LEFT COMPANY (FORTUNE) | 1843 |
+| 01-10-09 | 1840 | ROBERT MCGRAW | V-3 | DRIG FARM - N/A | 2108 |
+| 01-10-09 | 1945 | ROBERT MCGRAW | PBSO | HITCHEW | 0930 |
+| 01-11-09 | 132 | EVELYN WILFORD TRINITY | PBSO | HITCHEW | 1725 |
+| 01-11-09 | 0906 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1715 |
+| 01-11-09 | 0915 | Chevelle Hightower- SAAP | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1051 |
+| 01-11-09 | 0926 | Deneka Cummings- [REDACTED] - Public Defender | PBSO | I/M: Livingston, Douglas (F-Dorm). | 1150 |
+| 01-11-09 | 0932 | [REDACTED] Pagano- Paralegal | L-3 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1150 |
+| 01-11-09 | 0932 | Richard Alex- Doctor | V-12 | I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special). | 1843 |
+| 01-11-09 | 0932 | Richard Alex- Doctor | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1404 |
+| | | Brenda Nugrent- Trinity Staff | | - Lamar (F-Dorm). | |
+
+Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Docket 05/07/2010 Page 31 of 34
+ Internal Service (of defense) Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2010
+
+legaleagleinc.com
+
+34
+
+*"CENTRAL CONTROL"*
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER STOCKADE WEST COUNTY DETENTION DRUG FARM
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|--------|---------------------|-------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 1/4/09 | 207 | EVELYN WILFORD + RIVERY | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1003 |
+| 1/4/09 | 729 | PATRICIA EDELMAN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1402 |
+| 1/4/09 | 0913 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1730 |
+| 1/4/09 | 0955 | Brenda Nugrent- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1812 |
+| 1/4/09 | 1002 | Deneka [REDACTED] - Public Defender | PBSO | En route to various droms to see inmates. | 1110 |
+| 1/4/09 | 1535 | Arnold Prosperi | VI | T-SPECIAL | 1705 |
+| 1/4/09 | 1739 | STORY CLOWKES | VI | T-SPECIAL | 2036 |
+| 1/4/09 | 100 pull | Johnnie Penkins | VI | T-DORM | 2059 |
+| 1/5/09 | 132 | EVELYN WILFORD TRINITY | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1027 |
+| 1/5/09 | 632 | ELIZABETH GREEN + RIVERY | PBSO | KITCHEN | 1415 |
+| 1/5/09 | 715 | PATRICIA EDELMAN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1603 |
+| 1/5/09 | 726 | ARTHUR TROY SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | — |
+| 1/5/09 | 732 | MR WEST SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1600 |
+| 1/5/09 | 732 | MS BROWSTLEN SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1614 |
+| 1/5/09 | 738 | TAMA GLESON SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1600 |
+| 1/5/09 | 740 | SUSAN WILKOFF SAAP | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1726 |
+| 1/5/09 | 0750 | JULIA ADAMS (JAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1630 |
+| 1/5/09 | 0755 | JOHN HABICHT (TRINITY) | PBSO | DRUG FARM Q-BLDG | 1540 |
+| 1/5/09 | 0812 | JAY BADGETT (PBCWB) | PBSO | CLASSROOM | 1140 |
+| 1/5/09 | 0816 | ANGELIKI WENINGER (JAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1626 |
+| 1/5/09 | 0908 | PATRICIA NEWBY (TRINITY) | PBSO | Q-BLDG | 1744 |
+| 1/5/09 | 0932 | TIMOTHY JUTTN (JAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1627 |
+| 1/5/09 | 105 | TERRY GLAVES (JAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1538 |
+| 1/5/09 | 111 | CHEVELLE HYTOWER (JAAP) | PBSO | DRUG FARM | 1713 |
+| 1/5/09 | 1159 | MIRLANDE OSTING (TRINITY) | PBSO | Q-BLDG | 1920 |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+ WEST COUNTY DETENTION
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|----------|
+| 1-2-09 | 7:48 | BARRY GIBSON | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1348 |
+| 1-2-09 | 7:49 | MICHAEL WEST | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1348 |
+| 1-02-09 | 0800 | Angeliki Weissinger- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1825 |
+| 1-02-09 | 0829 | David Bulter- Medical DX | V-12 | En route to Medical via gate #15. | 0910 |
+| 1-02-09 | 0904 | Patrecha Newby- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1630 |
+| 1-02-09 | 1010 | Pablo [REDACTED] - DAF | PBSO | En route to Restroom in visitation lobby. | 1016 |
+| 1-02-09 | 1200 | Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff | PBSO | Q-Bldg. | 1830 |
+| 1-02-09 | 1303 | [REDACTED] Varji- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1540 |
+| 1-02-09 | 1338 | Kevin Raudt- Attorney | L-3 | I/M: Blasko, Paul (A-Dorm). | 1424 |
+| 1-02-09 | 1406 | Robert Humes- SAAP | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1655 |
+| 1-02-09 | 1423 | Sarah Korn- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1718 |
+| 1-02-09 | 1423 | Jessica Wally- DAF | PBSO | Drug Farm area. | 1718 |
+| 1-02-09 | 1531 | Lloyd [REDACTED] - Vulcan Pest Control | V-2 | En route to Q-Bldg via gate #4. | 1546 |
+| 01-02-09 | 1955 | JOWAN AROELO | V-1 | DRUG FARM - ALUMNI | 2108 |
+| 01-02-09 | 1955 | HAROLD HUNTER | V-3 | DRUG FARM - ALUMNI | 2108 |
+| 01-02-09 | 1955 | GENNADY ZHURAVLYOV | V-4 | DRUG FARM - ALUMNI | 2108 |
+| 01-02-09 | 1955 | JOEL MILLER | V-5 | DRUG FARM - ALUMNI | 2108 |
+| 01-02-09 | 1955 | PHILIP SIEVENS | V-7 | DRUG FARM - ALUMNI | 2108 |
+| 01-03-09 | 0308 | ELIZABETH DREEN TRAVILLY | PBSO | Quebee | 0710 |
+| 01-03-09 | 0427 | JOHN HOBBICHT TRAVILLY | PBSO | Quebee | 0945 |
+| 01-03-09 | 0731 | ROBERT HUNES I-SMAP | PBSO | Drug Farm | 1132 |
+| 1-3-09 | 9859 | MIRANDE OSTING | PBSO | Q-BUILDING | 1704 |
+| 1-3-09 | 1212 | STORY GROUND | L | T-STOPPED | 1705 |
+| 1-3-09 | 1445 | JOSEPH PAYGRAD | L | T-STOPPED | 1642 |
+| 1-3-09 | 1000 | BRENDA NURBERT (TRINITY) | 0790. | KITCHEN, Q-BLDG. | 1828 |
+
+ MAIN DETENTION CENTER
+
+ STOCKADE
+
+| DATE | TIME IN | VISITOR NAME / ORGANIZATION | PASS # | NAME OF STAFF/INMATE VISITING | TIME OUT |
+|----------|---------|--------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------|
+| 12/31/08 | 1719 | D/S Tucker & Companion Tour | PSD | Antholon Jeanett PASS # 12 | 1855 |
+| 12/31/08 | 1719 | D/S Tucker & Companion Tour | — | Ephra TARS PASS # 13 | 1855 |
+| 12-31-08 | 1805 | James Summers (elegant) | PSD | Dany Farm / A.E.G. - T-Dorm | 1855 |
+| 12-31-08 | 1824 | Stefen BANNISTEN (elegant) | PSD | C-Dorm | 2045 |
+| 12-31-08 | 1857 | Leobart NORWELL (Atlanta) | LAT | F-Dorm / M. Joseph | 1935 |
+| 12-31-08 | 1900 | KRISTIPE COW (A.A.) | V#12 | C-Dorm | 1952 |
+| 12-31-08 | 111 | Martha SURANZ (A.A.) | V#13 | C-Dorm | 2028 |
+| 12-31-08 | 1950 | Theresa BADAMI (N.A.) | V-2 | C-Dorm | 2028 |
+| 12-31-08 | 1950 | Rebecca ANTICO (N.A.) | V-3 | C-Dorm | 2100 |
+| 1-1-09 | 1:50 | Evelyn W. Ford / Trinity | PSD | C-Dorm | 2100 |
+| 1-1-09 | 6:30 | Ants Pinkney / Trinity | PSD | Qubec | 1035 |
+| 1-1-09 | 7:28 | Ms. Edleman / Drug Farm | PSD | Qubec | 1035 |
+| 01/01/09 | 0103 | PATRICIA NEWBY (TRINITY) | PSD | Drug Farm | 1039 |
+| 01/01/09 | 0946 | ALAN DELSANOWITZ | PSD | Q-BLDG | 1540 |
+| 01/01/09 | 1010 | MIRLANDE OSTING | LI | T-SPECIAL (EPSTEIN, J) | 1703 |
+| 1-1-09 | 12:20 | JOSEPH PAGAHO | PSD | Q-BLDG | 1225 |
+| 1-1-09 | 1517 | ARNOLD PROSPERI (PARA-L6 & AC) | LI | T-Special (Z/M Epstein) | 1845 |
+| 1/11/09 | 1811 | Story Austin COWLES | LI | T-Special (Z/M EPSTEIN, J) | 1414 |
+| 01-01-09 | 1943 | JOHNNIE PERKIOS | V-1 | T-Special (Epstein) | 1622 |
+| 1-2-09 | 0135 | CURTIS PINKNEY (TRINITY) | PSD | T-DORM | 2101 |
+| 1-2-09 | 0617 | John Habicht (TRINITY) | PSD | Kitchen | 2102 |
+| 1-2-09 | 0724 | ARTHUR TROU | PSD | Kitchen | 1430 |
+| 1-2-09 | 0726 | Susan WINHOFF | PSD | Drug farm | 1440 |
+| 1-2-09 | 0728 | Intericia Edleman | PSD | Drug farm | 1606 |
+| 1-2-09 | 0932 | Cathy Bronstein | PSD | Drug farm | 1815 |
+| 1-2-09 | 0743 | Silia Arlants | PSD | Drug farm | 1550 |
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/EFTA02749385.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/EFTA02749385.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..51cc08fe7c229c80b2e2bc1d1d34d6da4f8797c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/EFTA02749385.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1942 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 34,
+ "chars": 108347,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 132.63,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_1_Picture_15.jpeg",
+ "_page_3_Picture_16.jpeg",
+ "_page_4_Picture_18.jpeg",
+ "_page_5_Picture_7.jpeg",
+ "_page_10_Picture_18.jpeg",
+ "_page_13_Picture_17.jpeg",
+ "_page_14_Picture_17.jpeg",
+ "_page_17_Picture_20.jpeg",
+ "_page_22_Picture_21.jpeg",
+ "_page_25_Picture_10.jpeg",
+ "_page_27_Picture_46.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "EXHIBIT I \nPart 3 of 3",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 192.78000000000003,
+ 230.60418701171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 429.8376159667969,
+ 230.60418701171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 429.8376159667969,
+ 357.7305603027344
+ ],
+ [
+ 192.78000000000003,
+ 357.7305603027344
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 71.721
+ ],
+ [
+ 245.313,
+ 71.721
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 246.156,
+ 22.681
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 22.681
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 69.882
+ ],
+ [
+ 246.156,
+ 69.882
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \" CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 241.09799999999998,
+ 22.681
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.09,
+ 22.681
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.09,
+ 82.142
+ ],
+ [
+ 241.09799999999998,
+ 82.142
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 70.495
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 70.495
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS \nOFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 23.907000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.832275390625,
+ 23.907000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.832275390625,
+ 86.433
+ ],
+ [
+ 244.46999999999997,
+ 86.433
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 26.971999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 26.971999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 25.746000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 69.882
+ ],
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 69.882
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.88300000000004,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 70.495
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.88300000000004,
+ 70.495
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 18.39
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 18.39
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 70.495
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.04000000000005,
+ 70.495
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 237.72599999999997,
+ 22.067999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 22.067999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 68.656
+ ],
+ [
+ 237.72599999999997,
+ 68.656
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 237.72599999999997,
+ 22.067999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 22.067999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 69.882
+ ],
+ [
+ 237.72599999999997,
+ 69.882
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 241.94099999999997,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.933,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.933,
+ 69.269
+ ],
+ [
+ 241.94099999999997,
+ 69.269
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 240.25499999999997,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.404,
+ 23.293999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.404,
+ 68.043
+ ],
+ [
+ 240.25499999999997,
+ 68.043
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 241.09799999999998,
+ 20.229000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.09,
+ 20.229000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.09,
+ 69.882
+ ],
+ [
+ 241.09799999999998,
+ 69.882
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \" CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 249.52799999999996,
+ 37.393
+ ],
+ [
+ 542.049,
+ 37.393
+ ],
+ [
+ 542.049,
+ 101.14500000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 249.52799999999996,
+ 101.14500000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 247.84199999999998,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.8340000000001,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.8340000000001,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 247.84199999999998,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 242.784,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.933,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 531.933,
+ 74.173
+ ],
+ [
+ 242.784,
+ 74.173
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 24.520000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 528.5609999999999,
+ 74.173
+ ],
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 74.173
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 247.84199999999998,
+ 22.681
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.991,
+ 22.681
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.991,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 247.84199999999998,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.404,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.404,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 238.56899999999996,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG CENTRAL CONTROL",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 236.88300000000004,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 23.907
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.875,
+ 85.82000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 236.88300000000004,
+ 85.82000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 277.34700000000004,
+ 18.39
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 18.39
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.305,
+ 54.556999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 277.34700000000004,
+ 54.556999999999995
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 230.982,
+ 37.393
+ ],
+ [
+ 522.66,
+ 37.393
+ ],
+ [
+ 522.66,
+ 79.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 230.982,
+ 79.69
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 232.66800000000003,
+ 38.619
+ ],
+ [
+ 524.346,
+ 38.619
+ ],
+ [
+ 524.346,
+ 67.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 232.66800000000003,
+ 67.42999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 309.38100000000003,
+ 68.043
+ ],
+ [
+ 450.162,
+ 68.043
+ ],
+ [
+ 450.162,
+ 80.91600000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 309.38100000000003,
+ 80.91600000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 230.982,
+ 33.714999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 521.8169999999999,
+ 33.714999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 521.8169999999999,
+ 76.625
+ ],
+ [
+ 230.982,
+ 76.625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 241.94099999999997,
+ 34.941
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 34.941
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.462,
+ 81.52900000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 241.94099999999997,
+ 81.52900000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG CENTRAL CONTROL",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 252.89999999999998,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.95,
+ 21.455000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.95,
+ 98.08000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 252.89999999999998,
+ 98.08000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 295.04999999999995,
+ 27.585
+ ],
+ [
+ 590.0999999999999,
+ 27.585
+ ],
+ [
+ 590.0999999999999,
+ 107.275
+ ],
+ [
+ 295.04999999999995,
+ 107.275
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 36.89,
+ 129.3
+ ],
+ [
+ 86.27499999999999,
+ 129.3
+ ],
+ [
+ 86.27499999999999,
+ 578.402
+ ],
+ [
+ 36.89,
+ 578.402
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG \" CENTRAL CONTROL \"",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 258.801,
+ 34.328
+ ],
+ [
+ 550.479,
+ 34.328
+ ],
+ [
+ 550.479,
+ 99.306
+ ],
+ [
+ 258.801,
+ 99.306
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 31,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.74299999999997,
+ 28.197999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 542.8919999999999,
+ 28.197999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 542.8919999999999,
+ 71.721
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.74299999999997,
+ 71.721
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 32,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 258.801,
+ 28.197999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.95,
+ 28.197999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.95,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 258.801,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL VISITOR LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 33,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 247.84199999999998,
+ 17.777
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.8340000000001,
+ 17.777
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.8340000000001,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 247.84199999999998,
+ 72.33399999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 404
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 41
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 31,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 32,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 33,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749385"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_10_Picture_18.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_10_Picture_18.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d02780b719b5645df64c8191206f4a9b7c316030
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_10_Picture_18.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:a5e81d818341d7d9a785e5ccaa55bd018316e08d2a93ecd09f6f432e5f4b8588
+size 5019
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_13_Picture_17.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_13_Picture_17.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3ee31f363fc2798ec7bf1732cb875e9ca9978d4d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_13_Picture_17.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:e70efa29b8682d71764aee7758b2cb2cc61873e3e09b6301e3cf7aa27d0ec90a
+size 5186
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_14_Picture_17.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_14_Picture_17.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..05b6a44fc5dcdc19144888dd85284889757e130f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_14_Picture_17.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:fdff38cc26f30a38f177bcef64468ce65b6b48e343d787d7b3ce2c503a31e425
+size 5327
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_17_Picture_20.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_17_Picture_20.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..98d53c89572fe9fde1e4725cfe1512633952cbd5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_17_Picture_20.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:ff39aaa9a6df4054f908b42b92d1bd9bf2a9388de3c75ba9b9865313ee64d803
+size 4964
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_1_Picture_15.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_1_Picture_15.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5cbad25de4909e7827af7c78dcdfcbff7deaeeff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_1_Picture_15.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:4fe7f60ac084e4e0a85e3f51edb3476ab56e845dac6f53d8292988264fad8fcf
+size 3328
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_22_Picture_21.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_22_Picture_21.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b31a188fda1404cd628d1bfd792d93e5203cfaa7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_22_Picture_21.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:3a7a5e8d64be05140999bbd3f69282a36c0076927b28e983e6df817da5e98c6d
+size 4495
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_25_Picture_10.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_25_Picture_10.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c669b0d1bb3008649c95f3e06a2de353196d552
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_25_Picture_10.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:bb0511f2942052f1cc1b12516f0e5a3d4cf4af954623bd99225d826b610eb4a9
+size 2906
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_27_Picture_46.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_27_Picture_46.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf398a62241e8fe4ba5b072869539bf68871938b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_27_Picture_46.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:8382595562676fdd663a431182bb30c86083d7865eda1adb7b1eb3bd951341b0
+size 4737
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_3_Picture_16.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_3_Picture_16.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60397b7839a6e58f0dbbe3d03b54a31bacb1863a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_3_Picture_16.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:cd8b44eeda0632ae405a442bf3e919469833b35a4799c01bb5e3896001dfa268
+size 4333
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_4_Picture_18.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_4_Picture_18.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55f08ff20384a5de3123220bca6a544a05c18fa6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_4_Picture_18.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:f4928fad9d1aeda6e76a69ee791bab661f2484444a76ca27aeb01f8393420faf
+size 4439
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_5_Picture_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_5_Picture_7.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..713dfbe2201b3c97d4c0193ab87e027d0cd0a80f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749385/_page_5_Picture_7.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:1993a0e55a55e261b703d0f7e0e895f59906b5962a934a99ab95bab865245597
+size 3124
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749419/EFTA02749419.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749419/EFTA02749419.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9bccdec40c8da98081aa3ddb27b060c503cc027d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749419/EFTA02749419.md
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+## EXHIBIT II
+
+DC NO: W35755 NAME: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY SUPV LVL: CC7 TERM DT: 07/21/2010
+
+gr:01 ACTIVE OFFICER: 24398-ELKINS,CANDICE CUR.LOC: 154 LAKE WORTH
+
+AL DATE TIME TYP NARRATIVE
+
+02/17/10 1420 CN
+
+TRAVEL PERMIT APPROVED AND WAS EMAILED TO S'S STAFF ATTN: STORY COWLES.CELKINS
+
+02/22/10 1840 TP
+
+P.O.RECEIVES PHONECALL FROM S'S ASSNT. STORY COWLES THAT S WILL BE TRAVELING TOMM FOR LEGAL ISSUES TO NY/STORY APLOGIZED FOR IT BEING LAST MIN AND STATED ITIENERARY IS BEING SENT NOW TO THIS OFC'S WORK EMAIL/S IS SET TO LEAVE TOMM AND RETURN ON 2/24.CELKINS
+
+02/22/10 2112 HP HOME PERSONAL - ROUTINE CONTACT. NO CHANGES NOTED.
+
+WALK THROUGH VISUAL INSPECTION CONDUCTED
+
+THIS OFC CONDUCTED A WALK-THRU WITH OFC /S SHOWED THESE OFC HIS WHOLE HOUSE/NO PROBLEMS.CELKINS
+
+02/23/10 1114 OP OFFICE PERSONAL/ SUBMITTED COMMUNITY CONTROL SCHED
+
+S WAS REINSTRUCTED ON HIS ORDERS/S WAS GIVEN TRAVEL PERMIT
+
+F4=RETURN TO PREVIOUS SCREEN
+
+F2=1ST PAGE F3=PGDN F12=IT05 AC I=PP76/U=PP76/T=PP78
+
+F1-MAIN MENU F6=SCREENS F7=REPORTS
+
+DC NO: W35755 NAME: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY SUPV LVL: CC7 TERM DT: 07/21/2010
+
+SAT:01 ACTIVE OFFICER: 24398-ELKINS,CANDICE CUR.LOC: 154 LAKE WORTH
+
+Ac DATE TIME TYP NARRATIVE
+
+02/23/10 1114 OP OFFICE PERSONAL/ SUBMITTED COMMUNITY CONTROL SCHED TO TRAVEL TO NY AND WILL RETURN ON 2/24-S MADE AWARE TO CALL THIS OFC ONCE HE RETURNS.CELKINS
+
+02/24/10 1545 CN P.O.RECEIVES EMAIL FROM S'S ASSTN THAT HE WILL BE TRAVELING ON 3/2-3/3 TO NEW YORK FOR DRS APPT AND LEGAL MTGS AND ALSO ON 3/5 TO THE VIRGIN ISLANDS FOR BUSINESS MTGS/P.O. TO GET ITENERARY READY AND HAVE SUP LOOK OVER/P.O.MADE PHONE CALL TO S'S ASSTN THAT S IS TO REPORT ON MON@ 1030AM CELKINS
+
+03/01/10 1036 OP OFFICE PERSONAL/ SUBMITTED COMMUNITY CONTROL SCHED WRITTEN MONTHLY REPORT RECEIVED FOR CURRENT MONTH. S REPORTED IN AND WAS GIVEN TRAVEL PERMITS/THIS OFC ALSO GOT THE HOME PHONE. TO THE NEW YORK ADDRESS TO VERIFY S IS ABIDING BY SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE.CELKINS
+
+F4=RETURN TO PREVIOUS SCREEN F1=MAIN MENU F6=SCREENS F7=REPORTS
+
+F2=1ST PAGE F3=PGDN F12=IT05 AC I=PP76/U=PP76/T=PP78
+
+**Sloane, Carmen**
+
+**From:** Story Cowles [storycowles@me.com]
+**Sent:** Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:14 AM
+**To:** Sloane, Carmen
+**Subject:** Schedule for Mr. Epstein
+
+Re: Helicopter flights
+
+Good Morning Officer Sloane,
+
+Our records indicate that Mr. Epstein has only taken one helicopter flight which was on September 14th to Miami. The other flight that he took was on August 27th to visit Sikorski Helicopters. That trip Mr. Epstein flew on a small plane, he had a helicopter standing by. Yesterday, November 10th, Mr. Epstein took a flight simulator for a helicopter. There was no actual time spent in the air.
+
+Story
+
+flew from PBI
+
+WPB -
+
+to Sikorski
+
+easyer
+
+(R.
+
+-8-27 - given permission
+
+-11-10 - given permission
+
+North Palm Beach
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749419/EFTA02749419.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749419/EFTA02749419.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cbfac8d41d4dcbc7ce855cd432656edb8dbd471a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749419/EFTA02749419.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,215 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749419.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 2834,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 4.61,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "EXHIBIT II",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 190.332,
+ 231.0955810546875
+ ],
+ [
+ 432.1318054199219,
+ 231.0955810546875
+ ],
+ [
+ 432.1318054199219,
+ 287.11407470703125
+ ],
+ [
+ 190.332,
+ 287.11407470703125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Sloane, Carmen",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 52.80899999999999,
+ 68.85000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 147.50099999999998,
+ 68.85000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 147.50099999999998,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 52.80899999999999,
+ 82.62
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 41
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749419"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749423/EFTA02749423.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749423/EFTA02749423.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af52ccc26a18a66270ef7ea3eb0a71bd5b88fbb5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749423/EFTA02749423.md
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRia
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+Vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+I
+
+## PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER IDE 5361
+
+Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby files this response to Defendant Epstein's Motion for A Protective Order Regarding the Deposition of Story Cowles [DE 536). The motion should be denied in its entirety, as Cowles possesses non-privileged information and any true attorney-client information he possesses obviously need not be disclosed during his deposition.
+
+Plaintiff Jane Doe agrees that Story Cowles, who was hired by Epstein's defense attorney in 2008, possesses some information properly covered by the attorney-client privilege and by work product. For example, defense counsel may have asked Cowles to relay attorney-client advice to Epstein. Jane Doe does not intend to ask any questions regarding such attorney client advice during Cowles's deposition.
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+At the same time, however, Cowles possesses significant information about statements made by Epstein that are clearly and obviously not covered by the attorneyclient or any other privilege. In particular, Cowles visited Epstein 159 times between 7/14/08 and 2/8/09 while Epstein was incarcerated, where he has been listed as a "Paralegal" an "Attorney" and "Public Defender" on different occasions. See Affidavit of (attached as Exhibit A). Often, these visits with Epstein involved three people: Epstein, Cowles, and a third-party visitor who was not part of Epstein's legal defense team (either civil or criminal). Of course, the presence of a third-party eliminated any "confidentiality" that might otherwise have attached to discussions between Cowles and Epstein. See id.
+
+The Cowles affidavit that has been filed by Epstein states charily that Epstein "has never discussed the claims asserted against him" except in the presence of an attorney. Cowles Affidavit, Ex. C to Epstein's Motion at 2 (emphasis added). But there are a variety of other subjects apart from the "claims asserted against him" that Epstein likely discussed — either with Cowles or with third party visitors in the presence of Cowles. For example, Epstein may have discussed where he is hiding his assets with Cowles: Is he moving them to the Channel Islands, as Jane Does has heard? Is he moving them to Israel, as has been suggested in a nationally-circulated publication? Is he liquidating them to pay mounting bills? Is he transferring title to his expensive cars and yachts to other persons, as Jane Doe argued in her motion seeking to block further asset transfers?
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAi
+
+Another subject that Jane Doe plans to explore, Cowles has been in a dating relationship with for more than a year. As the Court is aware, Jane Doe has alleged that conspired with Epstein to sexually abuse her. has taken the Fifth rather than answer questions about her role in helping Epstein abuse Jane Doe and other girls. Jane Doe is obviously entitled to explore these subjects during a deposition of Cowles. It simply defies any believability to think that Cowles will attempt to maintain — under oath — that not once has he discussed with his girlfriend anything connected (either directly or indirectly) with Epstein's activities. At the very least, Cowles should be required to make whatever representations he intends to make on this subject under oath at a deposition.
+
+Another subject that Jane Doe plans to explore is Cowles's errands that he has recently been running for Epstein. Mr. Cowles's primary vehicle is owned by Defendant Epstein, which clearly indicates a relationship quite different from that of a clientparalegal. Jane Doe understands that Cowles is currently at Epstein's home nearly every day and works directly for Epstein. Indeed, Cowles has represented himself to Florida probation authorities as Epstein's assistant. See Affidavit of (attached as Exhibit A). Certainly, in this capacity, Cowles has personally observed, and communicated with, the visitors that come and go from Epstein's home, all potential witnesses. Here again, there is ample ground for questioning on subjects not remotely covered by any kind of privilege.
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA'
+
+As another example of relevant subjects not covered by any privilege that Jane Doe plans to explore, Epstein may have discussed plans to flee the jurisdiction to avoid being served with legal process connected with the case.
+
+In sum, all of these subjects (not to mention many others) are obviously not covered by any attorney client privilege and a deposition of Cowles inquiring into such subjects is clearly proper.
+
+Epstein also argues that Jane Doe's counsel "agreed" — apparently forever and for all subjects and for all time — never to depose Cowles. While there was a limited agreement regarding Cowles, Epstein's description of what was agreed goes far beyond what was actually agreed. See Affidavit of (attached as Exhibit A). Here again, there is no basis for the Court foreclosing all opportunity to question Cowles about his potentially important knowledge regarding Epstein and his recent efforts to hide assets and other activities. This point is even more important given the fact that Epstein and all of his known co-conspirators in his child molestation ring (namely, , and have invoked their 59.' amendment rights against self-incrimination and have thus stopped Plaintiff from gaining any meaningful discovery whatsoever.
+
+For all these reasons, Epstein's motion to foreclose completely a deposition of Cowles should be denied. Obviously, Jane Doe will not ask questions during the deposition about attorney-client advice conveyed by Cowles to Epstein.
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+DATED: May 7, 2010
+
+AFFE, WEISSING, , FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+and
+
+Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 7, 2010 I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+> s/ J. J.
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+## SERVICE LIST
+
+Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Jooldberaer@aqwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bcIclaw.com
+
+Isidro Manual isidroqarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack jph@searcylaw.com •
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell(thoodhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike MPike@bciclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassello@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawyerswillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsbero@podhurst.com
+
+Adam D. Horowitz ahorowitz@sexabuseattornev.com
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein ssm@sexabuseattorney.com
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749423/EFTA02749423.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749423/EFTA02749423.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c40be484e2e11b644f1906725fd252c06df40156
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749423/EFTA02749423.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,333 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749423.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 6,
+ "chars": 7480,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.11,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 71.0675048828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.520751953125,
+ 71.0675048828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.520751953125,
+ 99.54998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 99.54998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS \nMOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER IDE 5361",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 144.432,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 467.58428955078125,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 467.58428955078125,
+ 416.79998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 144.432,
+ 416.79998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 225.216,
+ 495.72
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.0013122558594,
+ 495.72
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.0013122558594,
+ 511.29998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 225.216,
+ 511.29998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 123.12
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.1988220214844,
+ 123.12
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.1988220214844,
+ 138.91998291015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 138.91998291015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749423"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749429/EFTA02749429.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749429/EFTA02749429.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d4febfb82c5ec66515c99e506813b5dcd2da662
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749429/EFTA02749429.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases•
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 0940656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES
+
+This matter came before the Court on a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Deadlines Having considered the Joint Motion it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED as follows:
+
+- 1. Jane Does 2-7 discovery cutoff is extended to July 2, 2010.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010.
+
+Kenneth A. Marra United States District Judge
+
+Courtesy Copies: Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749429/EFTA02749429.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749429/EFTA02749429.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3754b4fa34bd7311e5f1d1c2e3b8371ef71c8c83
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749429/EFTA02749429.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749429.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 775,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.77,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.27960205078125,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.27960205078125,
+ 103.23248291015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 202.572,
+ 103.23248291015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME \nTO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 139.536,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 481.9912109375,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 481.9912109375,
+ 393.11248779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 139.536,
+ 393.11248779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749429"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749430/EFTA02749430.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749430/EFTA02749430.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f91ffe0a88aac8f986afe332ccc7bdf771026f35
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749430/EFTA02749430.md
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/a
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, and Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through their undersigned attorneys respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time to complete discovery deadlines, and as good cause in support of granting the motion, states as follows:
+
+- 1. These cases are currently set on a two week trial docket commencing on September 27, 2010.
+- 2. The depositions of Plaintiffs have been taken but anumber of depositions remain to be completed for the parties, including anumber of out of state depositions. Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendant's counsel are working together to schedule these depositions.
+
+Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 2
+
+3. The scheduling of depositions in this matter has become much more difficult since the case was consolidated on May 14, 2009, due to the number of attorneys involved and the fact that witnesses, plaintiffs and the defendant may only be deposed once. (See Order Consolidating Cases for Purpose of Discovery and Procedural Motions That Relate to Multiple Cases). Additionally, many of the witnesses retained their own counsel, and the depositions need to be coordinated with those attorneys' schedules.
+
+5. Due to the fact that depositions are still being scheduled, both Plaintiffs and Defendant are in agreement with extending the discovery cutoff in Jane Does 2-7 July 2, 2010.
+
+6. All other deadlines remain in effect. The parties have filed dispositive motions in accordance with the Court's Order, and will be exchanging expert reports beginning May 14, 2010.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendant request that this Court enter an order granting the Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery.
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1
+
+Counsel for the parties conferred via e-mail and are in agreement with moving the above dates.
+
+> By: /s/ Robert D. Critton ROBERT D. CRITTON, ESQ. Florida Bar # 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+#### Certificate of Service
+
+Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 3
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 11th day of May, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Robert D. Critton
+
+ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar No. 224162
+
+rcrit@bciclaw.com
+
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar #617296
+
+mpike@bc1claw.com
+
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN
+
+303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561/842-2820 Phone
+
+561/515-3148 Fax
+
+(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+# Certificate of Service
+
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey E •
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+
+Suite 2218
+
+Miami, FL 33160
+
+305-931-2200
+
+, Jaffe, Weissing, Fistos &
+
+Lehrman, PL
+
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+
+Suite 2
+
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+
+Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 4
+
+Fax: 305-931-0877 ssm@sexabuseattornev.com ahorowitz@sexabuseattornev.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintifft In related Cases Nos. 0840069, 08-80119 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300
+
+Fax: 561-835-8691 jagesq@bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+
+Miami, FL 33130
+
+305 358-2800
+
+Fax: 305 358-2382
+
+riosefsbereanodhurst.com
+
+kezell@podhurst.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656
+
+brad@Dathtoiustice.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+
+Pro Hac Vice
+
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+
+801-585-5202
+
+801-585-6833 Fax
+
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe
+
+Isidro M. MI Esq.
+
+Law Firm, P.A.
+
+224 Datum Street, Suite 900
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561-832-7732
+
+561-832-7137 F
+
+isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749430/EFTA02749430.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749430/EFTA02749430.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c89c86286a937a3d2eaa8444bfbad2cfcf5ed07d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749430/EFTA02749430.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,296 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749430.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 4656,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.7,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 90.72
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.65200000000004,
+ 90.72
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.65200000000004,
+ 118.25999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 118.25999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME \nTO COMPLETE DISCOVERY DEADLINES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 173.19599999999997,
+ 379.08000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 446.148,
+ 379.08000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 446.148,
+ 408.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 173.19599999999997,
+ 408.24
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 163.404,
+ 468.18
+ ],
+ [
+ 493.93792724609375,
+ 468.18
+ ],
+ [
+ 493.93792724609375,
+ 482.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 163.404,
+ 482.76
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 689.31
+ ],
+ [
+ 368.56298828125,
+ 689.31
+ ],
+ [
+ 368.56298828125,
+ 702.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 255.81599999999997,
+ 702.27
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.36799999999997,
+ 537.84
+ ],
+ [
+ 367.96051025390625,
+ 537.84
+ ],
+ [
+ 367.96051025390625,
+ 554.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.36799999999997,
+ 554.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 193
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 262
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 83
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 40
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 226
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749430"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749434/EFTA02749434.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749434/EFTA02749434.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9438190e3dd39914a26cd9a52c64785439d31df6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749434/EFTA02749434.md
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRS
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION (AS TO JANE DOES 2-8)
+
+This matter came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion to Attend Mediation and Plaintiffs' counsel being in agreement with the entry of this Order, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
+
+- 1. The Court's No Contact Order (DE 238) shall not preclude Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, from attending Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8' mediations or trials of these case.
+- 2. The Parties shall not be required to appear in the same room at the mediation, and need not have any face-to-face contact. They may remain throughout the course of the mediation in separate rooms within the mediator's offices. Both the Defendant and the Plaintiffs shall undertake reasonable efforts to avoid any contact with each other during the course of the mediation.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010.
+
+United States Magistrate Judge
+
+Courtesy Copies:
+
+Counsel of Record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749434/EFTA02749434.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749434/EFTA02749434.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..daa524516e56fe6a09437018b66d0ed6cabc7fa3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749434/EFTA02749434.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749434.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1230,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.7,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 73.71000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.61566162109375,
+ 73.71000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.61566162109375,
+ 103.85302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 103.85302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S \nMOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION \n(AS TO JANE DOES 2-8)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 186.66,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 434.31817626953125,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 434.31817626953125,
+ 404.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 186.66,
+ 404.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749434"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749436/EFTA02749436.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749436/EFTA02749436.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e618b50405d5df6feb5b3d24d367e1916dbe37c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749436/EFTA02749436.md
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRall
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION JAS TO JANE DOES 2-81
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, moves this Court for an order allowing him to attend mediation in the above-styled matter and as grounds set forth would state:
+
+- 1. The Court entered a no contact order which may apply to Jane Does 2-8, DE 238.
+- 2. Plaintiffs' counsel and Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8 have no objection to Mr. Epstein attending mediations and trials.
+- 3. Therefore, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in an abundance of caution requests that the court enter the attached proposed Agreed Order which shall not preclude him from attending Jane Does' mediations or the trials of these cases.
+
+### Rule 7.1 Certification
+
+Defense counsel has spoken with Plaintiffs' counsel and he has no objections to the entry of the proposed order.
+
+> By: /s/ Michael J. Pike Robert D. Critton, Jr. Michael J. Pike Attorneys for Defendant Epstein
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by electronic mail (e-mail) on this 1 1 th day of May, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Michael J. Pike ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcrit@bciclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mpike@bc1claw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+**Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein**
+**Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/[REDACTED]**
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+Suite 2218
+Miami, FL 33160
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+[ssm@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ssm@sexabuseattorney.com)
+[ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com](mailto:ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs*
+*In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994*
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+561-659-8300
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+[jagesq@bellsouth.net](mailto:jagesq@bellsouth.net)
+*Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein*
+
+Brad [REDACTED], Esq.
+[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos
+& Lehrman, PL
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+[brad@pathtojustice.com](mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893*
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+*Pro Hac Vice*
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+801-585-5202
+801-585-6833 Fax
+[cassellp@law.utah.edu](mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu)
+*Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe*
+
+Isidro M. [REDACTED], Esq.
+[REDACTED] Law Firm, P.A.
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561-832-7732
+561-832-7137 F
+[isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net](mailto:isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net)
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749436/EFTA02749436.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749436/EFTA02749436.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17c6cff6165c67216cadcc96f18c81864b8b0af6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749436/EFTA02749436.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,254 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749436.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 3440,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 5.88,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.61566162109375,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.61566162109375,
+ 101.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 101.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION \nJAS TO JANE DOES 2-81",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 179.928,
+ 359.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 440.7853698730469,
+ 359.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 440.7853698730469,
+ 389.6030578613281
+ ],
+ [
+ 179.928,
+ 389.6030578613281
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Rule 7.1 Certification",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 255.204,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 362.7390441894531,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 362.7390441894531,
+ 86.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 255.204,
+ 86.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 252.144,
+ 249.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 366.83050537109375,
+ 249.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 366.83050537109375,
+ 264.35302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 252.144,
+ 264.35302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/[REDACTED]",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 190.94400000000002,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.0559999999999,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.0559999999999,
+ 113.4
+ ],
+ [
+ 190.94400000000002,
+ 113.4
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749436"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749439/EFTA02749439.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749439/EFTA02749439.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5943d7bfa300c7718577fc92c69eebe40a0950ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749439/EFTA02749439.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRAIMIS
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+
+
+## AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION (AS TO JANE DOES 2-81
+
+This matter came before the Court on Defendant Epstein's Motion to Attend .) A.Va Mediation and Plaintiffs' counsel being in agreement with the entry of this Order, it is
+
+HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
+
+- 1. The Court's No Contact Order (DE 238) shall not preclude Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, from attending Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8' mediations or trials of these case.
+- 2. The Parties shall not be required to appear in the same room at the mediation, and need not have any face-to-face contact. They may remain throughout the course of the mediation in separate rooms within the mediator's offices. Both the Defendant and the Plaintiffs shall undertake reasonable efforts to avoid any contact with each other during the course of the mediation.
+
+DONE and ORDERED this it day of , 2010.
+
+Courtesy Copies:
+
+Counsel of Record
+
+United States Lwwa =81A -S st3 'trate Judge
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749439/EFTA02749439.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749439/EFTA02749439.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ded681f2301dca4dd1475d602875b223606cf4ca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749439/EFTA02749439.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749439.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1289,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.88,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_11.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 199.26,
+ 88.28999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.9839172363281,
+ 88.28999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 402.9839172363281,
+ 118.343505859375
+ ],
+ [
+ 199.26,
+ 118.343505859375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S \nMOTION TO ATTEND MEDIATION \n(AS TO JANE DOES 2-81",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 185.73,
+ 362.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 419.5466613769531,
+ 362.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 419.5466613769531,
+ 404.8435363769531
+ ],
+ [
+ 185.73,
+ 404.8435363769531
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749439"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749439/_page_0_Picture_11.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749439/_page_0_Picture_11.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e20059c7f669c3c6c2a2d3c0a228aa484a5cbc4d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749439/_page_0_Picture_11.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:fd0c84177cbd5acf516667fa6b1d90f46b22985e3dd6afd9b61c01a97674a421
+size 11754
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749441/EFTA02749441.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749441/EFTA02749441.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc44b1eed58b2f363a0e54271bc36f093350221d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749441/EFTA02749441.md
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 — MARRA...
+
+JANE DOE,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+v.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+## DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (dated 03/23/09)
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ('EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P., 34, and S.D. Fla. 26.1.G., serves his response to Plaintiff JANE DOE's First Request For Production, dated March 23, 2009.
+
+Request No. 1: Copies of all telephone records in your or your attorneys' possession from 2002 through 2005 that in any way relate to you (including all phone lines owned by you or that were used to contact girls for the purposes of scheduling massages for you.)
+
+Response; Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+Request No. 2: All massage appointment books, diaries, computer calendars or scheduling entities, scheduling books or any other writing or correspondence that contains the names of any of the girls that were called, contacted, scheduled or who
+
+
+
+otherwise went to your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, for the purpose of giving you a massage.
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+**Request No. 3:** Any and all documentation in your possession that contains Plaintiff's name or that refers to Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, (includes e-mails, letters, message pads, diaries, appointment books, computer print outs).
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+**Request No. 4:** Any and all photos, videos, downloaded digital prints or any other visual depiction of Plaintiff, or of any other known or suspected minor females introduced to you, directly or indirectly, by Plaintiff.
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+**Request No. 5:** Photos of the inside of your home located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, that depict the room(s) where the massages took place (including massage table).
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+**Request No. 6:** Any and all documentation of cancelled checks or evidence of payment to Plaintiff of any kind and for any reason whatsoever.
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+**Request No. 7:** All discovery information obtained by you or your attorneys as a result of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you or the Federal investigation against you.
+
+**Response:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible
+
+pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege.
+
+Request No. 8: All financial documents evidencing asset transfers from 2005 to the present for you personally or any company or corporation owned by you.
+
+Responsei, Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+Request No. 9: Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided to local, state, or federal law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal prosecutors investigating your sexual activities with minors.
+
+Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege.
+
+Request No. 10: All correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, letters to and from the State Attorney's office or any agents thereof).
+
+**Response:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege.
+
+**Request No. 11:** Any and all documents reflecting your current net worth.
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+**Request No. 12:** Personal tax returns for all years from 2002 through the present.
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution; overly broad.
+
+**Request No. 13:** A photocopy of your passport, including any supplemental pages reflecting travel to locations outside the 50 United States between 2020 and 2008,
+
+including any documents or records regarding plane tickets, hotel receipts, or transportation arrangements.
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional protections and privileges, the scope of information is so overbroad that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; compiling such information over a six year period would be unduly burdensome and time consuming.
+
+**Request No. 14:** A sworn statement of your net worth (including a detailed financial statement depicting all current assets and liabilities).
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+**Request No. 15:** All financial statements or affidavits produced by you for any reason, to any person, company, entity or corporation since 2005.
+
+**Response:** Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution; overly broad.
+
+Request No. 16: All medical records of Defendant Epstein from Dr. Stephan Alexander.
+
+Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of ththregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this /Ktfllay of May, 2009.
+
+Brad , Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-522-3456 Fax: 954-527-8663 bedwardsarra-law.com Counsel for Plaintiff Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax cassello law.utah.edu Co-counsel for Plaintiff
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 561-835-8691 Fax jaqesqabellsouth.net Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Respectfully subm
+
+RITTON, JR., ESQ.
+
+Florida Bar No. 224162
+
+rcrit4bciclaw.com
+
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
+
+515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561/842-2820 Phone
+
+561/515-3148 Fax
+
+(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749441/EFTA02749441.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749441/EFTA02749441.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e1604ce75082cb371f94a14421c7440722df29a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749441/EFTA02749441.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,344 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749441.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 8,
+ "chars": 18064,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 11.43,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_13.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 205.63200000000003,
+ 62.37
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.4953918457031,
+ 62.37
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.4953918457031,
+ 89.91
+ ],
+ [
+ 205.63200000000003,
+ 89.91
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S \nFIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (dated 03/23/09)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 149.94,
+ 326.43
+ ],
+ [
+ 475.524,
+ 326.43
+ ],
+ [
+ 475.524,
+ 353.96999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 149.94,
+ 353.96999999999997
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 249.08399999999997,
+ 314.28000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 376.0203857421875,
+ 314.28000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 376.0203857421875,
+ 328.05
+ ],
+ [
+ 249.08399999999997,
+ 328.05
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 298
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 478
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 318
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749441"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749441/_page_0_Picture_13.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749441/_page_0_Picture_13.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3fec7ebba3de7442d7adbe1b5c5feef8dfe1b04e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749441/_page_0_Picture_13.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:e7b9c35793d0be27d327a62dbd676af470a51a78431fae1859b0bd2b114cd35e
+size 10575
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749449/EFTA02749449.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749449/EFTA02749449.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2208959872eafab74b893313e2199f7e0aac59e7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749449/EFTA02749449.md
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRAMMI
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+v.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+## DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF NET WORTH DOCUMENTS DATED JUNE 29. 2009
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, serves his Responses and Objections to the Request for Production of Net Worth Documents and states:
+
+Request No. 1: All Federal and State income tax returns, including all W-2 forms, 1099 forms and schedules, for tax years 2003-2008.
+
+Response and Objections to Request Number 1: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in asupplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for
+
+
+
+all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense, however responding to this and other relating inquiries have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information that would be protected. More specifically, the act of producing the above information may implicitly communicate statements of fact in that they would implicitly authenticate the requested information, require Epstein to admit that the requested information exists and admit that same were in his possession, custody and control. The very act of production itself may therefore provide alink in the chain of evidence adverse to Epstein, see generally United States vHubbell 520 US 27, 36 (2000)
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the request for production as unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The specific information requested as to tax retums also seeks information that is confidential and protected by federal law, 26 USC 6103. Further, Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period from 2003-2008.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be produced, it should not be produced without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be produced at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+Request No. 2: AU documents relating to the assets, liabilities, income, expenses and net worth of Defendant, including without limitation, the following for each of the past five (5) years.
+
+- a. annual financial reports;
+- b. balance sheets;
+- c. income statements;
+- d. cash flow statements;
+- e. quarterly financial reports;
+- f. budget reports; and
+- g. financial analysis
+
+Response and Objections to Request Number 2: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments
+
+as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense, however responding to this and other relating inquiries have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information that would be protected. More specifically, the act of producing the above information may implicitly communicate statements of fact in that they would implicitly authenticate the requested information, require Epstein to admit that the requested information exists and admit that same were in his possession, custody and control. The very act of production itself may therefore provide a link in the chain of evidence adverse to Epstein, see generally United States v Hubbell 520 US 27, 36 (2000)
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the request for production as unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period of the past five (5) years.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be produced, it should not be produced without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be produced at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+**Request No. 3:** All documentation which refer or relate to financing or loans requested or applied for by the Defendant, including loan applications, appraisals, financial spreadsheets, etc.
+
+**Response and Objections to Request Number 3:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments
+
+as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense, however responding to this and other relating inquiries have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information that would be protected. More specifically, the act of producing the above information may implicitly communicate statements of fact in that they would implicitly authenticate the requested information, require Epstein to admit that the requested information exists and admit that same were in his possession, custody and control. The very act of production itself may therefore provide a link in the chain of evidence adverse to Epstein, see generally United States v Hubbell 520 US 27, 36 (2000)
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the request for production as unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2002 to present.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be produced, it should not be produced without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be produced at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+**Request No. 4:** Any and all appraisals indicating fair market value of real estate or other property of Defendant.
+
+**Response and Objections to Request Number 4:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference
+
+under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in a supplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense, however responding to this and other relating inquiries have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information that would be protected. More specifically, the act of producing the above information may implicitly communicate statements of fact in that they would implicitly authenticate the requested information, require Epstein to admit that the requested information exists and admit that same were in his possession, custody and control. The very act of production itself may therefore provide a link in the chain of evidence adverse to Epstein, see generally United States v Hubbell 520 US 27, 36 (2000)
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the request for production as unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2002 to present.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested information be produced, it should not be produced without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be produced at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+**Request No. 5:** Any and all documents referring or relating to investment or savings accounts, including without limitation, account statements and summaries.
+
+**Response and Objections to Request Number 5:** Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on certain U.S. constitutional privileges in declining at present to respond to this request for production based on advice from my counsel that I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth Amendment and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference
+
+under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable and would therefore violate the Constitution.
+
+Responding to the above financial request would require Epstein to identify information regarding the offenses that were the prior subject of a federal investigation as set forth in more detail in asupplementary response available to be provided to the court in camera and ex parte to the extent the good faith assertion of the privilege is in question. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense, however responding to this and other relating inquiries have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information that would be protected. More specifically, the act of producing the above information may implicitly communicate statements of fact in that they would implicitly authenticate She requested information, require Epstein to admit that the requested information exists and admit that same were in his possession, custody and control. The very act of production itself may therefore provide alink in the chain of evidence adverse to Epstein, see generally United States v Hubbell 520 US 27, 36 (2000)
+
+In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant also objects as the request for production as unreasonable, overbroad, confidential, proprietary in nature and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Plaintiffs Complaint alleges atime period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2002 to present.
+
+To the extent this court rules that some or all of the requested intonation be produced, it should not be produced without limitations (including confidentiality), and should only be produced at the very end of litigation but before trial in order for Plaintiff to establish her burden making it apparent that punitive damages can be awarded.
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing ha S. M il and facsimile to the following addressees this 2009. een sent day of
+
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300
+
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com
+iherman@hermanlaw.com
+lrivera@hermanlaw.com
+*Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2*
+
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+jagesq@bellsouth.net
+*Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey
+Epstein*
+
+![]()![]()*(Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749449/EFTA02749449.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749449/EFTA02749449.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e703ae959cf489779a8df99b231937984c17979
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749449/EFTA02749449.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,322 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749449.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 7,
+ "chars": 16514,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 12.2,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 214.2,
+ 93.15
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.32220458984375,
+ 93.15
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.32220458984375,
+ 121.70428466796875
+ ],
+ [
+ 214.2,
+ 121.70428466796875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO \nPLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF NET WORTH \nDOCUMENTS DATED JUNE 29. 2009",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 130.356,
+ 285.12
+ ],
+ [
+ 499.87225341796875,
+ 285.12
+ ],
+ [
+ 499.87225341796875,
+ 329.3818664550781
+ ],
+ [
+ 130.356,
+ 329.3818664550781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 257.03999999999996,
+ 522.45
+ ],
+ [
+ 376.3659362792969,
+ 522.45
+ ],
+ [
+ 376.3659362792969,
+ 535.7048950195312
+ ],
+ [
+ 257.03999999999996,
+ 535.7048950195312
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 337
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 493
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 490
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749449"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749449/_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749449/_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fbfff7b2d3b80eec4666a62251f9d4af2b74963d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749449/_page_0_Picture_14.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:f3a2387314717653e7da161eb99918b7a44d9d18e5f8bb0bd133023d8a634871
+size 12334
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749456/EFTA02749456.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749456/EFTA02749456.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fa975b78da9a1b809ee1ff33d031187f8db20a06
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749456/EFTA02749456.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+## IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
+
+L.M.,
+
+Vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+CASE NO. 50-2008-CA-028051 XXXX MB AB
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+Defendant.
+
+VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
+
+OATE: February 17, 2010
+
+
+
+U.S. Legal Support (561) 835-0220
+
+MR. Me :The 87-page Palm Beach Police Department incident report where there are numerous underage females describing their interaction with Mr. Epstein at his house. I'm reading specifically from page 41 related to A.H., who was one of the victims he pled guilty to.
+
+MR. PIKE: Is that the same document that you're seeking production of, in this same exact case?
+
+MR. : I don't know what• you're talking about. This is something from the State Attorney's file.
+
+MR. PIKE: Okay. Sorry. What's the question?
+
+Q Are you aware of that allegation? What lust read to you.
+
+A I would like to answer that question, •., however, today my attorneys have advised me must assert my Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment d Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. -onstitution.
+
+Q Assuming your attorneys have advised you hut because of Res Judicata, double jeopardy, you t
+
+U.S. Legal Support (561) 835-0220
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749456/EFTA02749456.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749456/EFTA02749456.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6526944eb15a74f758b137e7fdb2a16091f749ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749456/EFTA02749456.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749456.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1260,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.87,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_13.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE \nFIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR \nPALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 169.524,
+ 89.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 449.20799999999997,
+ 89.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 449.20799999999997,
+ 129.714599609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 169.524,
+ 129.714599609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 199
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749456"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749456/_page_0_Picture_13.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749456/_page_0_Picture_13.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eb29332691ad93621eb143b8e8953c573c23cc96
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749456/_page_0_Picture_13.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:282668a9516829db3e5c437f0fd277560fc67beb2fe4e2ad6e016bd3391154c9
+size 12607
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749458/EFTA02749458.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749458/EFTA02749458.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6f20eb7c09f4b1cc5df76f917603371f7f340e3e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749458/EFTA02749458.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1533 @@
+ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 1
+ime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+Lase No. : 1-05-000368
+PECIAL NOTES : Occur From Date: 1/27/05 0000
+Occur To Date : 1/27/05 0000 Report Date : 3/14/05 1600
+ay Of Week : Thursday
+Ommon/Location: 358 EL BRILLO WY
+ity : PALM BEACH, FL
+location Type : RESIDENCE-SINGLE FAMILY
+aat Assignment: DETECTIVE BUREAU Map Reference : 10
+apt Class : SEXUAL BATTERY Report Officer : PAGAN, MICHELE
+ase Status : OPEN / ACTIVE Case Status Dt : 3/14/05
+ipervisory Dt : TRYLCH, JEFFREY 3/14/05
+itry Date : OREGERO, LAURA 4/06/05
+imes? : Property? :
+ihicles? : Offenses? :
+irrative? : Related Cases? :
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V E H I C L E I N F O R M A T I O N # 1 \*\*\*\*\*
+lse number : 1-05-000368 Category :
+ate Veh Type : Year : 0
+lke : Model :
+ldel Name : Permit Number :
+lyle : Color - Top :
+lor - Bottom : License # :
+N : Stolen value : 0
+sposition : Insured :
+sured by : Keys in car :
+cle locked : Lean holder :
+le recovered : 0/00/00 Recovery value : 0
+reet number :
+ty :
+covery code : NCIC number :
+On Look Out?:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* P E R S O N R E P O R T I N G I N F O - # 1 \*\*\*\*\*
+se Number : 1-05-000368 Last Name :
+reet Number : [REDACTED]
+ty : [REDACTED]
+rth Date/Age : [REDACTED] Employer? :
+rupation : Oper Lic No. : [REDACTED]
+ne Phone No. : [REDACTED] Race : [REDACTED]
+t : Female Height : 0
+light : 0 Other Phone Nbr:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* S U S P E C T / A R R E S T E E I N F O R M A T I O N - # 1 \*\*
+se Number : 1-05-000368 Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+reet Number : 12247 72ND CT NORTH
+ly : [REDACTED] PALM BEACH, FL 334121460
+rth Date : 4/09/1986 18 Maximum Age : 18
+lloyer? : Occupation :
+lr Lic No. : R125320866290 FL Home Phone No. : [REDACTED]
+ler Phone Nbr: Race : [REDACTED]
+l : Female Minimum Height : 0
+lum Weight : 0 Maximum Height : 0
+
+
+
+
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 2
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Case No. : 1-05-000368
+Laximum Weight : 0
+Liases? :
+Air Color :
+Air Style :
+Lasses :
+Acial Hair :
+Eeth :
+At :
+Hirt :
+Hoes :
+Ody Marks #2 :
+Ody Marks #4 :
+rrest Case No.:
+
+(Continued)
+Misc. ID# :
+MO/Crime Spec? :
+Hair Length :
+Eye Color :
+Complexion :
+Build :
+Speech :
+Coat :
+Pants :
+Body Marks #1 :
+Body Marks #3 :
+Status : STILL SUSPECT
+Additional UCR?:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* S U S P E C T / A R R E S T E E I N F O R M A T I O N - # 2 \*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368
+Treet Number : 358 EL BRILLO WY
+Lity : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+Rth Date : 5/25/1979 25
+Ployer? :
+Per Lic No. : 241534676 HA
+Pher Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Px : Female
+Minimum Weight : 0
+Maximum Weight : 0
+Press? :
+Air Color :
+Air Style :
+Lasses :
+Acial Hair :
+Eeth :
+At :
+Hirt :
+Hoes :
+Ody Marks #2 :
+Ody Marks #4 :
+rrest Case No.:
+
+Maximum Age : 25
+Occupation : PERSONAL ASST/EPSTEIN
+Home Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+Race :
+Minimum Height : 0
+Maximum Height : 0
+Misc. ID# :
+MO/Crime Spec? :
+Hair Length :
+Eye Color :
+Complexion :
+Build :
+Speech :
+Coat :
+Pants :
+Body Marks #1 :
+Body Marks #3 :
+Status : STILL SUSPECT
+Additional UCR?:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* S U S P E C T / A R R E S T E E I N F O R M A T I O N - # 3 \*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368
+Treet Number : 358 EL BRILLO WY
+Lity : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+Rth Date : 1/20/1953 52
+Ployer? :
+Per Lic No. : E123425530200 FL
+Pher Phone Nbr:
+Px : Male
+Minimum Weight : 0
+Maximum Weight : 0
+Press? :
+Air Color :
+Air Style :
+
+Maximum Age : 52
+Occupation :
+Home Phone No. :
+Race :
+Minimum Height : 0
+Maximum Height : 0
+Misc. ID# :
+MO/Crime Spec? :
+Hair Length :
+Eye Color :
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 3
+Program: CMS301L
+
+se No. : 1-05-000368
+Classes :
+Facial Hair :
+Feeth :
+Hat :
+Hirt :
+Hoes :
+Body Marks #2 :
+Body Marks #4 :
+Arrest Case No. :
+
+(Continued)
+Complexion :
+Build :
+Speech :
+Coat :
+Pants :
+Body Marks #1 :
+Body Marks #3 :
+Status : STILL SUSPECT
+Additional UCR?:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* VICTIM INFORMATION - # 1 \*\*\*\*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368
+Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+Treet Number : [REDACTED]
+Ity : [REDACTED]
+Date/Age : [REDACTED] 14
+Occupation : STUDENT
+Phone No. : [REDACTED]
+Ex : Female
+Sight : 0
+On Look Out?:
+Itim Type : JUVENILE
+Asidency Sts :
+An Identify :
+Injury Extent :
+Injury Type 2 :
+Treatment :
+Ins Last Name :
+
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. :
+Race :
+Height : 0
+Misc. ID# :
+Other Phone Nbr:
+Residency Type :
+File Charges :
+Victim Sobriety:
+Injury Type 1 :
+Hospital ID :
+Phys First Name:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* VICTIM INFORMATION - # 2 \*\*\*\*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368
+Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+Treet Number :
+Ity : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+Date/Age : [REDACTED] 18
+Occupation :
+Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+Ex : Female
+Sight : 0
+On Look Out?:
+Itim Type : ADULT
+Asidency Sts :
+An Identify :
+Injury Extent :
+Injury Type 2 :
+Treatment :
+Ins Last Name :
+
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. :
+Race :
+Height : 0
+Misc. ID# :
+Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Residency Type :
+File Charges :
+Victim Sobriety:
+Injury Type 1 :
+Hospital ID :
+Phys First Name:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* VICTIM INFORMATION - # 3 \*\*\*\*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368
+Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+Treet Number :
+Ity : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+Date/Age : [REDACTED] 16
+Employer? :
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 4
+Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+ocupation :
+ome Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+ex : Female
+sight : 0
+a On Look Out?:
+ictim Type : JUVENILE
+asidency Sts :
+an Identify :
+ijury Extent :
+ijury Type 2 :
+ad Treatment :
+iys Last Name :
+
+Oper Lic No. :
+Race : [REDACTED]
+Height : 0
+Misc. ID# :
+Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Residency Type :
+File Charges :
+Victim Sobriety:
+Injury Type 1 :
+Hospital ID :
+Phys First Name:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 4 \*\*\*\*\*
+ase Number : 1-05-000368 Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+reet Number :
+ty : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+rth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 17
+ocupation :
+ome Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+ex : Female
+sight : 0
+On Look Out?:
+ictim Type : JUVENILE
+sidency Sts :
+Identify :
+jury Extent :
+jury Type 2 :
+ad Treatment :
+iys Last Name :
+
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. :
+Race : [REDACTED]
+Height : 0
+Misc. ID# :
+Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Residency Type :
+File Charges :
+Victim Sobriety:
+Injury Type 1 :
+Hospital ID :
+Phys First Name:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 5 \*\*\*\*\*
+ase Number : 1-05-000368 Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+reet Number :
+ty : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+rth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 18
+ocupation :
+ome Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+ex : Female
+sight : 0
+On Look Out?:
+ictim Type : ADULT
+sidency Sts :
+Identify :
+jury Extent :
+jury Type 2 :
+ad Treatment :
+iys Last Name :
+
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. :
+Race : [REDACTED]
+Height : 0
+Misc. ID# :
+Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Residency Type :
+File Charges :
+Victim Sobriety:
+Injury Type 1 :
+Hospital ID :
+Phys First Name:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 6 \*\*\*\*\*
+ase Number : 1-05-000368
+not valid in: [REDACTED]
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 5
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Line No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+treet Number :
+ity : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+irth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 16
+ocupation :
+ome Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+ex : Female
+sight : 0
+s On Look Out?:
+ictim Type : JUVENILE
+esidency Sts :
+an Identify :
+jury Extent :
+jury Type 2 :
+ad Treatment :
+ys Last Name :
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 7 \*\*\*\*\*
+se Number : 1-05-000368 Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+treet Number :
+ity : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+irth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 17
+ocupation :
+ome Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+ex : Female
+sight : 0
+s On Look Out?:
+ictim Type : JUVENILE
+esidency Sts :
+an Identify :
+jury Extent :
+jury Type 2 :
+ad Treatment :
+ys Last Name :
+
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. :
+Race :
+Height : 0
+Misc. ID# :
+Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Residency Type :
+File Charges :
+Victim Sobriety:
+Injury Type 1 :
+Hospital ID :
+Phys First Name:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 7 \*\*\*\*\*
+se Number : 1-05-000368 Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+treet Number :
+ity : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+irth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 17
+ocupation :
+ome Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+ex : Female
+sight : 0
+s On Look Out?:
+ictim Type : JUVENILE
+esidency Sts :
+an Identify :
+jury Extent :
+jury Type 2 :
+ad Treatment :
+ys Last Name :
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 8 \*\*\*\*\*
+se Number : 1-05-000368 Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+treet Number :
+ity : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+irth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 16
+ocupation :
+ome Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+ex : Female
+sight : 0
+s On Look Out?:
+ictim Type : JUVENILE
+esidency Sts :
+an Identify :
+jury Extent :
+jury Type 2 :
+ad Treatment :
+ys Last Name :
+
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. :
+Race :
+Height : 0
+Misc. ID# :
+Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Residency Type :
+File Charges :
+Victim Sobriety:
+Injury Type 1 :
+Hospital ID :
+Phys First Name:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 9 \*\*\*\*\*
+se Number : 1-05-000368 Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+treet Number :
+ity : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+irth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 16
+ocupation :
+ome Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+ex : Female
+sight : 0
+s On Look Out?:
+ictim Type : JUVENILE
+esidency Sts :
+an Identify :
+jury Extent :
+jury Type 2 :
+ad Treatment :
+ys Last Name :
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 9 \*\*\*\*\*
+se Number : 1-05-000368 Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+treet Number :
+ity : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+irth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 16
+ocupation :
+ome Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+ex : Female
+sight : 0
+s On Look Out?:
+ictim Type : JUVENILE
+esidency Sts :
+an Identify :
+jury Extent :
+jury Type 2 :
+ad Treatment :
+ys Last Name :
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 6
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Lase No. : 1-05-000368
+Lase Number : 1-05-000368
+Treet Number :
+Ity : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+Irth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 17
+Coupation :
+Ome Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+Ex : Female
+Eight : 0
+On Look Out?:
+Ictim Type : JUVENILE
+Esidency Sts :
+An Identify :
+Jury Extent :
+Jury Type 2 :
+Ed Treatment :
+Ys Last Name :
+
+Prompt valid in: [REDACTED] (Continued)
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 10 \*\*\*\*\*
+Lase Number : 1-05-000368
+Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+Treet Number :
+Ity : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+Irth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 17
+Coupation :
+Ome Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+Ex : Female
+Eight : 0
+On Look Out?:
+Ictim Type : JUVENILE
+Esidency Sts :
+An Identify :
+Jury Extent :
+Jury Type 2 :
+Ed Treatment :
+Ys Last Name :
+
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. :
+Race : [REDACTED]
+Height : 0
+Misc. ID# :
+Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Residency Type :
+File Charges :
+Victim Sobriety:
+Injury Type 1 :
+Hospital ID :
+Phys First Name:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 11 \*\*\*\*\*
+Lase Number : 1-05-000368
+Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+Treet Number :
+Ity : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+Irth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 18
+Coupation :
+Ome Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+Ex : Female
+Eight : 0
+On Look Out?:
+Ictim Type : ADULT
+Esidency Sts :
+An Identify :
+Jury Extent :
+Jury Type 2 :
+Ed Treatment :
+
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. :
+Race : [REDACTED]
+Height : 0
+Misc. ID# :
+Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Residency Type :
+File Charges :
+Victim Sobriety:
+Injury Type 1 :
+Hospital ID :
+Phys First Name:
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 7
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Case No. : 1-05-000368
+Phys Last Name :
+
+(Continued)
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 12 \*\*\*\*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368 Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+Street Number :
+City : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+Birth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 18 Employer? :
+Occupation : Oper Lic No. :
+Phone No. : 561/000-0000 Race : [REDACTED]
+Tex : Female Height : 0
+Weight : 0 Misc. ID# :
+On Look Out?: Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Ictim Type : ADULT Residency Type :
+Esidency Sts : File Charges :
+An Identify : Victim Sobriety:
+Injury Extent : Injury Type 1 :
+Injury Type 2 : Hospital ID :
+ed Treatment :
+hys Last Name :
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 13 \*\*\*\*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368 Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+Street Number :
+City : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+Birth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 16 Employer? :
+Occupation :
+Phone No. : 561/000-0000 Race : [REDACTED]
+Tex : Female Height : 0
+Weight : 0 Misc. ID# :
+On Look Out?: Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Ictim Type : JUVENILE Residency Type :
+Esidency Sts : File Charges :
+An Identify : Victim Sobriety:
+Injury Extent : Injury Type 1 :
+Injury Type 2 : Hospital ID :
+ed Treatment :
+hys Last Name :
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 14 \*\*\*\*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368 Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+Street Number :
+City : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+Birth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 16 Employer? :
+Occupation :
+Phone No. : 561/000-0000 Race : [REDACTED]
+Tex : Female Height : 0
+Weight : 0 Misc. ID# :
+On Look Out?: Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Ictim Type : JUVENILE Residency Type :
+Esidency Sts : File Charges :
+An Identify : Victim Sobriety:
+Injury Extent : Injury Type 1 :
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 8
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Case No. : 1-05-000368
+Injury Type 2 :
+Med Treatment :
+Phys Last Name :
+
+(Continued)
+Hospital ID :
+Phys First Name:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 15 \*\*\*\*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368 Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+Street Number :
+City : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+Birth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 19 Employer? :
+Occupation :
+Ideme Phone No. : 561/000-0000 Oper Lic No. :
+Sex : Female Race : [REDACTED]
+Weight : 0 Height : 0
+Se On Look Out?: Misc. ID# :
+Victim Type : ADULT Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Residency Sts :
+Identify :
+Injury Extent :
+Injury Type 2 :
+Med Treatment :
+Phys Last Name :
+
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. :
+Race :
+Height : 0
+Misc. ID# :
+Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Residency Type :
+File Charges :
+Victim Sobriety:
+Injury Type 1 :
+Hospital ID :
+Phys First Name:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 16 \*\*\*\*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368 Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+Street Number :
+City : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+Birth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 17 Employer? :
+Occupation :
+Ideme Phone No. : 561/000-0000 Oper Lic No. :
+Sex : Female Race : [REDACTED]
+Weight : 0 Height : 0
+Se On Look Out?: Misc. ID# :
+Victim Type : JUVENILE Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Residency Sts :
+Identify :
+Injury Extent :
+Injury Type 2 :
+Med Treatment :
+Phys Last Name :
+
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. :
+Race :
+Height : 0
+Misc. ID# :
+Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Residency Type :
+File Charges :
+Victim Sobriety:
+Injury Type 1 :
+Hospital ID :
+Phys First Name:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* V I C T I M I N F O R M A T I O N - # 17 \*\*\*\*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368 Prompt valid in: [REDACTED]
+Street Number :
+City : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+Birth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 16 Employer? :
+Occupation :
+Ideme Phone No. : 561/000-0000 Oper Lic No. :
+Sex : Female Race : [REDACTED]
+Weight : 0 Height : 0
+Se On Look Out?: Misc. ID# :
+Victim Type : JUVENILE Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Residency Sts :
+Identify :
+
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. :
+Race :
+Height : 0
+Misc. ID# :
+Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Residency Type :
+File Charges :
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 9
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Case No. : 1-05-000368
+Can Identify :
+Injury Extent :
+Injury Type 2 :
+Med Treatment :
+Phys Last Name :
+
+(Continued)
+
+Victim Sobriety:
+Injury Type 1 :
+Hospital ID :
+Phys First Name:
+
+\*\*\*\*\* OTHER PERSON INFORMATION - #1 \*\*\*\*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368
+Street Number : [REDACTED]
+Site : [REDACTED]
+Birth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 14
+Occupation : STUDENT
+Lome Phone No. : [REDACTED]
+Ex : : Female
+Height : : 0
+Other Phone Nbr:
+
+Last Name : [REDACTED]
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. : [REDACTED]
+Race : : [REDACTED]
+Height : : 0
+Person Type : OTHER PERSON
+
+\*\*\*\*\* OTHER PERSON INFORMATION - #2 \*\*\*\*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368
+Street Number : 358 EL BRILLO WY
+Site : PALM BEACH, FL 000033480
+Birth Date/Age : 2/21/1985 19
+Occupation :
+Lome Phone No. :
+Ex : : Female
+Height : : 0
+Other Phone Nbr:
+
+Last Name : [REDACTED]
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. : M625620855610 FL
+Race : : [REDACTED]
+Height : : 510
+Person Type : OTHER PERSON
+
+\*\*\*\*\* OTHER PERSON INFORMATION - #3 \*\*\*\*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368
+Street Number : [REDACTED]
+Site : [REDACTED]
+Birth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 35
+Occupation :
+Lome Phone No. : [REDACTED]
+Ex : : Female
+Height : : 0
+Other Phone Nbr: 561/330-0400
+
+Last Name : [REDACTED]
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. : [REDACTED]
+Race : : [REDACTED]
+Height : : 0
+Person Type : OTHER PERSON
+
+\*\*\*\*\* OTHER PERSON INFORMATION - #4 \*\*\*\*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368
+Street Number : [REDACTED]
+Site : [REDACTED]
+Birth Date/Age : [REDACTED] 37
+Occupation : PAINTER
+Lome Phone No. : [REDACTED]
+Ex : : Male
+Height : : 0
+Other Phone Nbr:
+
+Last Name : [REDACTED]
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. : [REDACTED]
+Race : : [REDACTED]
+Height : : 0
+Person Type : OTHER PERSON
+
+\*\*\*\*\* OTHER PERSON INFORMATION - #5 \*\*\*\*\*
+Case Number : 1-05-000368
+
+Last Name : BACK, KATHY
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 10
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Line No. : 1-05-000368
+treet Number :
+ity :
+irth Date/Age : 0/00/0000 0
+ccupation : FAMILY THERAPIST
+ome Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+ex : Female
+eight : 0
+ther Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+
+(Continued)
+
+\*\*\*EMPLOYER INFORMATION\*\*\*
+
+Line Number : 1-05-000368
+Employer Name : PBC DIVISION OF YOUTH AFFAIRS
+Idress : 4200 N AUSTRALIAN AV
+ity/State/Zip : WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33407
+Line Number : 561/840-4540
+
+\*\*\*\*\* OTHER PERSON INFORMATION - # 6 \*\*\*\*\*
+
+Line Number : 1-05-000368
+treet Number :
+ity :
+irth Date/Age : 16
+ccupation : STUDENT
+ome Phone No. :
+ex : Male
+eight : 0
+ther Phone Nbr:
+
+Last Name : [REDACTED]
+
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. :
+Race :
+Height : 0
+Person Type : OTHER PERSON
+
+\*\*\*EMPLOYER INFORMATION\*\*\*
+
+Line Number : 1-05-000368
+Employer Name :
+idress :
+ity/State/Zip :
+ome Number :
+
+\*\*\*\*\* OTHER PERSON INFORMATION - # 7 \*\*\*\*\*
+
+Line Number : 1-05-000368
+treet Number :
+ity :
+irth Date/Age : 0/00/0000 0
+ccupation :
+ome Phone No. :
+ex : Male
+eight : 0
+ther Phone Nbr:
+
+Last Name :
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. :
+Race :
+Height : 0
+Person Type : OTHER PERSON
+
+\*\*\*\*\* OTHER PERSON INFORMATION - # 8 \*\*\*\*\*
+
+Line Number : 1-05-000368
+treet Number :
+ity :
+irth Date/Age : 0/00/0000 0
+ccupation :
+ome Phone No. :
+ex : Female
+
+Last Name :
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. :
+Race :
+Height : 0
+
+Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 11
+Time: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+Lase No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+Weight : 0
+Other Phone Nbr: Person Type : OTHER PERSON
+
+\*\*\*\*\* OTHER PERSON INFORMATION - # 9 \*\*\*\*\*
+Lase Number : 1-05-000368
+Life Number : [REDACTED]
+City : [REDACTED]
+Date/Age : [REDACTED] 16
+Occupation :
+Phone No. : 561/000-0000
+Ex : Female
+Eight : 0
+Other Phone Nbr: 561/000-0000
+Employer? :
+Oper Lic No. : [REDACTED]
+Race : [REDACTED]
+Height : 0
+Person Type : OTHER PERSON
+
+\*\*\*\*\* NARRATIVE #1 \*\*\*\*\*
+reginal Report LO Reported By: PAGAN, MICHELE D. 9/20/05
+Entered By: OREGERO, LAURA D. 9/20/05
+
+On 03/14/2005, I received a call from a woman who did not wish to identify herself (later identified as [REDACTED]). She stated that her fourteen year old step daughter (later identified as [REDACTED]) possibly may have been molested in Palm Beach by a wealthy man. According to [REDACTED], she learned of the possible molestation by a third party. She explained that she had received a call from the mother of her stepdaughter's friend. The mother claimed to have overheard a conversation between her daughter and a male friend; they were talking about [REDACTED]. The conversation was about how [REDACTED] had met with a 45-year-old man and had sex with him and was paid for it. I advised [REDACTED] that I would like to meet with her to obtain a more detailed statement and facts. [REDACTED] stated she did not know what to do and had to discuss the matter with her husband. At this point [REDACTED] did not provide me with a call back number or any other information. She stated that she would contact me once she had spoken with her husband and [REDACTED] mother.
+
+On 03/14/2005 received a call from Mr. & Mrs. [REDACTED]. They stated it was all right to speak to their daughter [REDACTED] via cell phone [REDACTED]. Her mother [REDACTED] had been made aware of the case. They agreed to meet me at the police department later this date. [REDACTED].
+
+On 03/14/2005, Mr. [REDACTED] accompanied by his wife [REDACTED], came to the Palm Beach Police Department where they advised me that they believed their fourteen year old daughter may have had some type of sexual relationship with an older male who resided in Palm Beach. Neither knew the suspect's name or address. Both stated that their daughter did not talk to them about the incident, nor would she admit to it.
+
+[REDACTED] identified his daughter as [REDACTED] w/f, DOB [REDACTED]; resides with her biological mother [REDACTED] at [REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED] is a twin,
+
+### >ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 12 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+lme: 15:01:37
+
+',Ade No 1-05-000368 (Continued) her sister in resides with Mr. !fit Both OM and are currently attending aillSWINMS which is an involuntary admitted juvenile educational facility. stays at the facility during the week and comes home on the weekenTillAccording to IIMMOOMMODshe was admitted to the school because of disciplinary problems that recently escalated. The facility also coordinates with the families to provide one on one as well as family counseling.
+
+According to Mrs. mmoms she believes the incident occurred on Sunday, Feb 6, 2005. A friend of named Haley picked her up at their house and left. They belielley initiated the relationship with the older gentleman, though they do not have any proof. Haley lives close by with her mother. Mrs further explained that was introduced to Haley by , a boy she was dating goes to eSINIMIS plays baseball). Mrs. acontinued that on Sunday, Haley picked ups and drove to Palm Beach where they met the man. Supposedly, the man has alot of money and often has young girls come over to his house. Haley offers these girls a way to make fast cash. The man starts with a massage. If he likes them, he keeps them around and does more. Theme did not have any information on Haley other than she lives on 72nd Place North, the last house on right side (north side).
+
+mrsami talked of aconversation that she had with MS SS, the mother of aformer friend of ear She found it strange that they were no longer friends until she received the call from her mother telling her of the conversation she overheard between and aboy named Ina
+
+Mrs. Sae told me of an incident that occurred on 02/09/2005. got into a fight at school ( ). Mrs.4111IS found over \$300.00 in purse. allk gave different explanations for the large sum of money. Initially the school administration thought it was drug related but then dismissed the claim. Since that day, did not return to school; she ran away Thursday, 02/10th or Fr day 02/11 and returned to her mother's house later that night after midnight. It was not until after aim received the call from SISmather, MIMMOMPIOMMOMMI, that she learned fla was the girl that got into the fight with The fight was instigated when illiataccusediglat of being a prostitute.
+
+e, who has legal joint custody of his daughter Oilima, signed the affidavit of prosecution indicating he wished to prosecute against the inappropriate sexual behavior with his fourteen-year-old daughter.
+
+Mr. stated that he had no objections with our agency speaking with h s aughter VW about the incident. Mr. 4IIIMMOMPstated that mothertals aware of the allegations and also was willing to cooperate. According to Mrs. Ala, she does not believe her daughter had any additional contact with the suspect as she was with
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 13
+Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No. . . : 1-05-000368
+her mother and then placed into [REDACTED].
+
+(Continued)
+
+I contacted the School Board Police who provided me the information for [REDACTED], also known as [REDACTED]. Checking the school board records for [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], there was no disciplinary record found. I was advised if no disciplinary action was taken for a fight, such as an expulsion or detention, the incident may not have been recorded. This was at the discretion of the individual school security and principal.
+
+03/15/2005, I called the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office and left a message for PBSP Sgt. Chris Keen, Child Abuse Unit.
+
+On 03/15/2005, I went to [REDACTED] where I met with [REDACTED] female [REDACTED]. Also present was Kathy Back, [REDACTED] therapist. During an audiotaped interview, I spoke with [REDACTED] about the allegations that were made. [REDACTED] initially denied anything had happened, only admitting to going with Haley (later identified as [REDACTED]) to Palm Beach to pick up money [REDACTED] was owed. [REDACTED] identified [REDACTED] as the cousin of her former boyfriend [REDACTED]. She ultimately admitted to knowing that [REDACTED] worked for a wealthy man and possibly did sexual favors for him. She also admitted that [REDACTED] had offered her an opportunity to make money.
+
+[REDACTED] identified [REDACTED] boss as a [REDACTED] male named "Jeff" who lived in Palm Beach (later positively identified as Jeffrey Epstein). [REDACTED] explained that she was first approached by [REDACTED] to go with her to Jeff's house, when they were at [REDACTED] house. According to [REDACTED], she was not sure exactly what was going on with [REDACTED] but agreed to go with her. [REDACTED] boyfriend) became angry when he heard [REDACTED] inviting [REDACTED] to accompany her. [REDACTED] believed it was to pick up money the man owed [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] stated [REDACTED] told her that she would pick her up at her house on Sunday. [REDACTED] was not sure of the exact dates but knew it was a Sunday. According to [REDACTED], [REDACTED] along with an unknown, possibly Hispanic female, picked her up at her father's house on [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] told her father that they were going shopping. It was later confirmed by [REDACTED] that [REDACTED] picked his daughter up. According to Mr. [REDACTED], [REDACTED] drove a pick up truck.
+
+[REDACTED] drove [REDACTED] along with the unknown female to Palm Beach. Sometime on the way there, a conversation occurred between [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] whereby [REDACTED] told [REDACTED] that if Jeff asked her ([REDACTED]) age, she should say she was eighteen.
+
+[REDACTED] recalled that Jeff's house was on a dead end street. All three girls walked up a driveway, past what appeared to be a small guard/security room. In fact, [REDACTED] recalled a male approaching them asking what they wanted. [REDACTED] stated they were there to see Jeff. The male allowed them to continue walking up to the house.
+
+# Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 14 rime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+J'ose No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) IMMINNOMIstated the man told them that Epstein was not there but was expected back. He allowed them to enter the house, via the kitchen. He offered them something to drink while waited inside. Shortly after, Epstein and a woman, described as with blond hair entered the kitchen. allrbelieved the woman was Epstein's Assistant. Alllippradded that the woman did not seem friendly and kept her responses short and direct. .Epstein introduced hims as Jeff . er got the impression that Epstein and friend knew each other. ANOMOMM,described Epstein as being approximately forty-five years old, a long face, and bushy eyebrows, with graying hair.
+
+and Epstein left the kitchen leaving- and IM= r fiend alone in the kitchen. They returned ashort time later. They all spoke briefly in the kitchen. While speaking to me, S became upset and started to cry. astated the woman instructed her to follow her upstairs, which she did. According to a, the woman led her to a room that had a massage table in it. The woman started to fix up the room, putting the covers on the table and taking lotions out. She then told that Epstein w e up in a second. The woman left the zoom; and soon after, walked in and tolde to take off her clothes. As was telling me what hadehappened, she looked away from me, and with apointed finger, repeatedly pressed it into her thigh. efillee stated he was stern when he told her to take off her clothes. said she did not know what to do as she was the only one there. took off her shirt leaving her bra on. Epstein, dressed in atowel told her to take off everything. ilallestated she removed her pants leaving her thong panties on. Epstein then instructed her to give him a massage pointing to a specific lotion for her to use. Epstein laid on the table, face down. As \_fib an to give Epstein the massage, he told her to get on his back. stated she straddled herself on Epstein's back. Sstate her exposed buttocks were touching Epstein s bare buttocks. As was giving Epstein the massage, he turned around, and wacked off later explained that wacking off was masturbating). stated she was disgusted by Epstein's actions but did not say anything. According todaft Epstein told her that she "had areally hot body." Epstein excused himself and went to the bathroom where she believed he masturbated again. Epstein returned to the room and toldAMMWMPthat he was done and gave her three hundred dollars. They went back down where they met Epstein said good-bye and they left. askedar ow d it go and asked what did she when told that stein asked for a massage, allegedly stated "I now." stated they then went shopping. stated since she was cjillitt that also but that she did not know why did not do anything. flan
+
+described Epstein's house as a two story pink house with a Cadillac Escalade parked in the drivewa . re were gates leading into the property. From the kitchen, ecalled walking up a flight of stairs, lined with photographs, to a room. Upon entering
+
+## )ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 15 rime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+Je No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) m tlae room there was alarge bathroom to the right. - recalled a hot pink and sofa in the room. There was a door on each side of the sofa. Yecalled there being amural of anaked woman in the room, as well as several photographs of naked women on ashelf.
+
+ainestated Epstein did not change in front of her but did take 'gal his towel, exposing himself. IONOMMftrecalled Epstein being hairy especially on his chest. Epstein also had ahairline that continued to his buttocks. MIMMIMMI admitted to seeing his penis. I asked cif she knew what being circumcised meant and she stated no. a then said that she thought Epstein was on steroids because he was a "really built guy and his wee wee was very tiny." ould explain that when she stated "wee weep she meant penis. 4IIIIIIIIstated Epstein exposed himself when he took his towel off, placing it on the floor as he laid down on the table.
+
+IMIMMOMMbsaid Epstein was specific in his instruction to her on how to massage, telling her to go clockwise, etc. alrecalled that Epstein got up from the table and went to the bathroom where she heard him making, what she believed to be sexual type of noises. (moaning) He then returned to the room where he again laid down on the table. Epstein then turned over and instructedeallaito massage his boobs. As she did this, Epstein continued to make moaning noises.
+
+aNMPIIMI resumed massaging his chest area. IIIIMMOOMMBwas now standing on the ground. Epstein turned to his side, and with the towe on the ground started to rub his penis in an up and down motion. stated Epstein held on to the small of her back as she massaged his chest, back and shoulder area. - recalled Epstein ejaculating because he had to use the towel to wipe himself as he got off the table. also recalled Epstein having a noticeable freckle on his chest.
+
+Epstein then left the room andIMEMMINMigot dressed. She went back downstairs where she met Haley and the unknown female. S admitted to getting paid three hundred dollars In cash from Epstein. Before they left, Epstein asked ...IBMS to leave her phone number. As they were leaving the house, Haley asked IS.what had happened and how much she was paid. •. stated Haley seemed upset or jealous when she told her that she received three hundred dollars. Haley stated received only two hundred dollars that day.4IS stated that she believed Haley was paid two hundred dollars for bringing her.
+
+111.; agreed. They then went shoppin , though she is not MOMMINOMMI tolde that if they do this every Saturday, they could sure where. Possibly at TJ Maxx or Marshall's. stated she never saw aain as she got into afight at school. She had not spoken wi either as her mother took away her cell phone.
+
+I askedOMMOMMOMMiif she was aware of any video equipment while she was in the room. She stated no.
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 16
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Date No. . . : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+
+[REDACTED] stated she was afraid that [REDACTED] would retaliate against her or her family if she ever went to the police regarding the incident. [REDACTED] stated that her father's vehicle was recently vandalized. [REDACTED] admitted to telling [REDACTED] what had happened with Epstein. According to [REDACTED], [REDACTED] became angry and upset, punching a hole in the wall. [REDACTED] guessed that it was [REDACTED] who told [REDACTED] about the incident, and now there were rumors in school about [REDACTED] and what she did with Epstein.
+
+I then talked to [REDACTED], about truth and lying. We talked about the color sweater she was wearing. [REDACTED] denied having sexual intercourse with Epstein. She denied touching his penis. [REDACTED] again admitted to observing Epstein masturbate.
+
+[REDACTED] agreed to cooperating with the police department in placing a phone call to [REDACTED] in a controlled setting. I met with Ms. Back and advised her of the families' as well as [REDACTED] willingness to cooperate with this investigation. Copies of this interview were placed into evidence.
+
+I made contact with [REDACTED] mother of [REDACTED]. I advised her briefly of my investigation. She was aware of the incident and stated that she overheard a portion of a conversation that her daughter was having with a boy named [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] stated that it was her opinion that both girls liked [REDACTED] recalled hearing her daughter calling [REDACTED] a whore. [REDACTED] admitted that she did not listen to the entire conversation but did confront her daughter about it later. [REDACTED] told her mother that something to the effect that [REDACTED] had slept with an older man for money. [REDACTED] stated that she would not object to me speaking with her daughter. It was [REDACTED] belief that everyone in the school may have known about this because of the fight that her daughter [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] had gotten into. I reminded [REDACTED] that this was an ongoing investigation and requested she not discuss the fact that I had contacted her. She agreed.
+
+On 03/16/2005, PBSO Sgt. Chris Keen left a message that he was returning my call. I spoke with Keen and discussed the case with him and inquired if he had any open allegations or cases where the suspect resided in Palm Beach. Keen stated he was unaware of any. Keen offered any assistance if needed. Keen stated it was his experience that due to the age of the parties involved, it would be difficult to interview them and expect the investigation to remain confidential.
+
+Because of the time delay, there was no need for the victim to be taken to a medical facility for a physical for the purpose of obtaining evidence. There was also no need to take her to CPT as she was already in a juvenile facility, with an assigned therapist, in which coordinating a day and time to obtain a statement could be made.
+
+On 03/17/2005, I queried Jeffery Epstein on the internet and obtained
+
+### )ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 17 rime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+!ase No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) a photo of Epstein to be used in a photo line up. I met withal...Bp Sat which time she viewed the photo line up. She immediately recognized Epstein and pointed to him (Position #5). at signed the photo line up under Epstein's picture. This signed line up was placed into evidence.
+
+On 03/18/2005, I met with at her residence for the purpose of placing a controlled call to . gespoke with and asked if she could arrange another meeting with Jeff. stated that she would have to call him and make the arrangements. copy of this conversation was placed into evidence.
+
+03/19/2005, I spoke withaandiSand was advised that left the state to visit with her aunt and uncle. his scheduled to return to Florida on 03/27/2005
+
+03/21/2005, I coordinated with PB BSF Unit and OCVAN to initiate surveillance on 358 El Brillo.
+
+03/21/2005, Coordinated with Det. Lee regarding trash pulls from 358 El Brillo. On this same date I calledSSarcto schedule an appointment to speak withal!. She stated the school guidance counselor was reluctant to have police presence at the school. I assured her that I would respond to the school in civilian clothes and an unmarked vehicle.
+
+alicalled me back and advised that I did not need to make an appointment to seelSI
+
+I received a return phone call from ONINIestating that[....r Swould be attending the family therapy sessions with
+
+I received messages from
+
+I conducted a computer query on Epstein. The results of this query indicated the most recent driver's license on file for Epstein was for the state of Florida, which had expired.
+
+A cross reference of Epstein s residence, 358 El revealed the following affiliated names: 02/21/1985, Mark L. Epstein, w/m dob 07/14/1954, Maxwell, uk/f, dob 12/25/1961. A computer query history. Brillo, Palm Beach, , w/f, dob & Ghaslaine N. for both returned no
+
+On 03/23/2005, I spoke withaillitallagiAcell phone wkS I requested that she not discuss the incident with anyone including her daughter ®as I did not want the investigation compromised. I was told at this time, thatiONMS and have not been getting along due to the fact that...lbhas decided to continue living with her father.
+
+On 03/29/2005, I placed telephone calls to both theiIIIIIIIftand 1IIIIIIIIIresidences requesting to speak with them regarding the
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 18
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Case No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+investigation. I received return phone calls from Mrs. [REDACTED] and Mrs. [REDACTED] and advised them that I would be contacting Kathy Back, [REDACTED] family therapist to coordinate a time to meet with [REDACTED]. This was at the request of both Back and Mrs. [REDACTED] that [REDACTED] strict classroom and therapy schedule be disrupted as little as possible. I also updated them to the investigation thus far. Both [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] stated they had no objection to my meeting with [REDACTED]. In speaking with Ms. [REDACTED] she identified the cell phone number of [REDACTED] as being the phone assigned to [REDACTED]. Ms. [REDACTED] had no objections and provided consent to giving it to the police department for the use of placing controlled phone calls from it. [REDACTED] stated the phone had been taken away from [REDACTED] as part of her punishment for not doing well in school. According to [REDACTED] used to be an excellent student, but in the past two months has become irritable, verbally abusive to the family and has run away. [REDACTED] stated her daughter's recent behavior is the opposite of what she normally is. [REDACTED] stated they are going through family therapy sessions with the school but none of this had come up. Arrangements were made for Det. Captain Gudger to retrieve the cell phone from [REDACTED] at her place of employment.
+
+I called [REDACTED] and requested to speak with Ms. Back. Upon speaking with Ms. Back she advised me that she was in the middle of therapy sessions and would call me back once the sessions were completed. Ms. Back stated the sessions should be concluded by 7:00 PM. At approximately 8:00PM I had called Ms. Back at which time I left a message on her voice mail requesting a return phone call. I spoke with Ms. [REDACTED] and advised her that I did not meet with her daughter and that I would again attempt to coordinate a time with the counselor so as not to disrupt [REDACTED] school schedule. [REDACTED] had no objections. Shortly after speaking with Ms. [REDACTED] I received a call from Ms. Back. I explained the situation and requested a time to meet with [REDACTED]. Back reviewed [REDACTED] schedule and advised that [REDACTED] would be available after 3:00PM.
+
+On 03/30/2005, I met with Ms. Back and [REDACTED] at [REDACTED]. I reminded [REDACTED] of her conversation with [REDACTED]. During this time [REDACTED] initiated a conversation with me in which she admitted that she was not telling me everything that had happened during the time she was alone with Epstein. According to [REDACTED], while she and Epstein were alone on the second floor, Epstein used a purple vibrator to massage her vaginal area. [REDACTED] stated there was no penetration as the vibrator was on top of her underwear. I asked [REDACTED] if Epstein ever asked her age and she stated he had. [REDACTED] stated she told him she was eighteen. When Epstein asked what school she was in, [REDACTED] responded she was in the twelfth grade at [REDACTED]. During the course of this incident, [REDACTED] stated Epstein told her that Haley had worked for him for years.
+
+We then continued with the controlled call to [REDACTED]. At approximately 3:35pm [REDACTED] from her cell phone, made a call to [REDACTED] s home, (561) 333-0180. [REDACTED] was not home. [REDACTED] was told
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 19
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Case No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+that [REDACTED] was at working a double and could be reached on her cell phone, (561) 308-0282. W/F, [REDACTED] is employed at The Olive Garden Restaurant, located on Forest Hills Blvd in Wellington.
+
+[REDACTED] called [REDACTED]. During the conversation between [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] asked [REDACTED], what happened, stating that she had heard rumors that [REDACTED] was going to press charges. [REDACTED] asked if they, meaning [REDACTED] parents, knew about Jeffrey. [REDACTED] claimed to have heard that [REDACTED] father had found out about Jeffrey. [REDACTED] told [REDACTED] that they (her parents) did not know anything about Epstein. [REDACTED] told [REDACTED] that Epstein needed someone to work tomorrow and asked if she was available. [REDACTED] stated she would call Epstein and then call [REDACTED] back.
+
+During the course of these conversations with [REDACTED], she would at times appear to be articulate and well spoken. She would then start to act in an immature manner, by looking around, not paying attention, drawing on a paper. [REDACTED] would offer me a high five whenever she claimed to have told me the truth in the details of the afternoon at Epstein's house. [REDACTED] would sit in the chair, with her knees propped up to her chest as she admitted that she did not tell me the all the details of her encounter with Epstein during our first meeting. As a means of positive reinforcement I would high five [REDACTED]
+
+On 03/31/2005, subpoena requests for T-Mobile Wireless (561)317-2143 and Cingular Wireless, [REDACTED] ([REDACTED] and [REDACTED] phone numbers) were drafted.
+
+On 04/01/2005, I met with members of PB BSF Unit for the purpose of conducting surveillance on 358 El Brillo. Cross-reference supplement.
+
+On 04/01/2005, I met with Det. Krauel of the Palm Beach Police Department who provided me a copy of the concealed weapons permit for Mr. Epstein. It revealed Epstein had a valid permit. There was no current photo attached to the renewal notice.
+
+On this same date I queried various different web sites for a possible identification of the purple item retrieved from the trash pull from 358 El Brillo. The item was similar in description as the one described by [REDACTED] and used by Epstein.
+
+I made contact with Spicygear.com and spoke with the owner John. I emailed a photograph of the item for his opinion. He identified the items as a Jelly Anal [REDACTED] of some sort. The item is easily available at sex shops in South Florida.
+
+On 04/06/2005, I conducted business queries into Epstein utilizing the internet. I located articles relating to financial reports. There was no local history.
+
+On 04/01/2005 - 04/03/2005, with the assistance of BSF, there was
+
+### )ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+rime: 15:01:37
+
+Page: 20
+
+....ae No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) continued surveillance on the property.
+
+On 04/04/2005, I obtained a copy of voicd mail messages, dated 03/31 and 04/01 from ip. toglreaffswis A female identifying herself as Haley states t at she could pickup to take her to Epstein's house for an eleven oclock appointment. A copy of this was placed into evidence.
+
+On 04/05/2005, atrash pull was conducted at 358 El Brillo by Det. Lee and me. There were several messages written on various forms of papers. There was a message from Haley, indicating...11:00. The following was additional information obtained from trash prrievp.A from 358 El Brillo: Jean Luc 6:20 AM; David 772-546-6952; 655-0995; 881-8116;655-0995papillif Alexis, Brit; /1 Rion lx; fuliias Friday 5:30PM;Joanna H eillill &Oa; Nicole; Sherry; Haley; a message receipt dated 4 4 1:05- Joanne S. 771-0546 She is looking to speak to you .; 917-7783-4113.
+
+On 04/06/2005 I faxed sub oena requests to SA Mighdolls office for Epstein, and phone records. (Phone numbers (561)832-4117, (561)317-2143, & (561) 383-7542).
+
+On 04/06/2005, I ext 311, and spoke with Princi al He confirmed that they had a student by the name of He requested a written request prior to releasing any additional information. On this same date I faxed Heers a request for student and parent information one S I advised Heers that due to this being an open investigation he was not to discuss the matter with anyone.
+
+on 04/08/2005, I received amessage fr roviding me the following information: cliM I !!!hP gimp Parents name: work
+
+Det. Lee provided me with trash obtained from 358 El Brillo for 04/06 04/07/05. The following information was retrieved: Jet Aviation 800-538-0724 itinerary, indicating a departure date of 04/05/2005 at 4:00 PM with an arrival in New York City of 6:15PM. Flight crew captain David Rodgers, co-captain, Larry Visoski, flight engineer Larry1111111i. Call sign N908JE; anote stating Bye J. thank you Johanna, an written notes & messages 11-Glenn, 12:30 chicken, Melissa 4, 3 September B & J, Big Screen x8, Johanna Sunda @ 4PM,41Ilii Monday after school?; left message for , Rhi on; Sandy works 4-9 Monday and Tuesday, leaves school Ca 11:30 AM; will be here tomorrow @ 10:30 Am; Mrs. Business 654-6699 Karen;833-4533. There was no trash for 04/08/05.
+
+04/22/05 received the results of asubpoena request from Bellsouth for 561-832-4117. The results only provided subscriber information. I contacted Alice Grant Investigative Subpoena Compliance Center who stated the request was not complete and the results would be sent to
+
+### )ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 21 rime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+. de No - 1-05-000368 me as soon as the query was finished. (Continued)
+
+Cross-referencing the names and as well as phone numbers, which were obtained from message notes via trash pulls, I identified the before mentioned individuals as being acquainted with someone El Brill°. DOB 06/07/1984, FL DL 4T350115847070 and , DOB 06/12/1966 FL DL3h625432867120 are both above the legal age o consent.
+
+On 05/03/2005, I s ke with and updated her on the investigation. stated that was doing well in the school. Her contact with the outside is limited as they do not have access to the phones. Scomes home on the weekends and she is not allowed to go anywhere alone.
+
+On 05/11/2005, I made arrangements to meet witheanda
+
+On Thursday, 05/12/05, I spoke with/ regarding the case. They will be moving to GA in July 2005. They will be very busy over the next few weeks but would be available via phone. Will coordinate a date to meet to dithctisi the-Matter further.
+
+During this week I conducted surveillance at Epstein s residence and at the airport, but there was nothing to indicate that Epstein was in town.
+
+Due to conflicting appointments, rescheduled until 06/02/2005, to meet ,With (Ns.ame
+
+I also spoke withIMISIIIIIIIMIOand updated her to the investigation.
+
+On 06/02/2005, I met with 41111111111Sandfleinfla a advised that she could be reached via her cell phone until she is able to 'provide me withaher newicontact information. 1 •
+
+I also received a message fromilISIS Attempted call back but the line was busy.
+
+June 14, 2005, I received information that Epstein's plane was at Jet Aviation. I spoke with Det. Lee regarding surveillance.
+
+I called the Olive Garden and asked for advised she was not working today. This would indicate that was still employed there.
+
+On 07/07/005 I faxed subpoena requests to SA Mighdolls office for Epstein, IIIIII and IIMMOOMMIONIP phone records. (Phone numbers (561)832-4117, (561)317-2143 and slINIMONIMINft. The original subpoena requests only provided subscriber and billing information.
+
+On 07/20/2005, conducted a trash pull arranged by Ofc. Lee. Inside there were misc. papers with phone numbers and names. There were
+
+### ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 22 ime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+awe No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) misc. female hygiene products in the trash. Based on a prior Auto Track report done on 358 El Brillo a ossible subject residing at the residence is fit the description provided by officers who had conducted survei ance in the area of a female seen entering and leaving the residence.
+
+On 07/21/05, I received the Duces Tecum dated 07/18/05, which was clerked by ASO
+
+On 07/26/2005, I received the results of Bell South Subpoena.
+
+On 08/04/05, I received DHL Express from T mobile with the results of the query.
+
+I spoke with aillaap who confirmed that. was still living out of state. It appeared that all was going well.
+
+I left a message foraapiatelS
+
+On 08/08/200S, / received the results of Cingular cell phone subpoena.
+
+During the week of 09/08/2005, I checked 358 El Brillo and the Palm Beach International Airport but there was no direct indication that Epstein was in town.
+
+On 09/08/2005, I reviewed the case notes of this file, as the case will be turned over to Det. Recarey.
+
+On 09/11/2005, while on patrol, I conducted a check at Epstein's residence and found that itt stillabad the hurricane shutters on. On a drive by the Palm Beach International Airport later that afternoon, I did not observe Epstein's plane.
+
+On 09/14/2005, I conducted a check at the Palm Beach International Airport but did not see Epstein s plane.
+
+On 09/19/2005, I spoke with to keep her updated and to find out if there was any change of address or phone numbers for I was told no. I left a message for Saaa at (Silla in order to provide her with Detective Recarey s information.
+
+t\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIVE # 2 \*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Reported By: RECAREY, 9/21/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO,IIIIIIE A. 9/21/05
+
+On September 19, 2005, I met with Officer Pagan and received the information pertaining to this case. Members of the Burglary Strike Force had previously been conducting surveillance on both Epstein and Officer Munyan was assigned to monitor the E stein home and Sgt Sorge and Officer Minot were assigned to monitor . Both teams provided a surveillance log that will be placed into the
+
+)ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+rime: 15:01:37
+
+Page: 23
+
+No • 1-05-000368 attachment file.
+
+(Continued)
+
+Det. Dawson was assigned to relieve Officer Munyan at 4:00 pm; he informed me that at approximately 8:00 pm, Epstein had left for the airport and his private jet was sitting on the tarmac. Epstein's private vehicle drove to the jet and unloaded packages into the jet. It appeared that Epstein left the county at this time. Surveillance will continue to determine when Epstein will return.
+
+Inv Continues.
+
+\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIVE # 3\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* A Reported By: PARKINSON, GREGORY A. 9/23/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 9/23/05
+
+On Friday, September ;3, 2005 at approximately 1:45 p.m., I began to copy a tape micro cassette, under case number 05-368 and property number 05-243, tape number 1. I placed the tape in the telex copy-et, series 2 machine and began to go through the copying process. Approximately 1/2 through the tape, the tape wrapped around the spindle and became locked and stretched the tape. I examined it and determined that it was in the best interest to leave it as it is as a prior copy had been made and turned over to Sergeant Frick. I immediately took the tape to Sergeant Frick and allowed him to examine it and then obtained the copy from him and Detective Recarey and brought the copy of the tape down and made a copy for him based on that. The tape was placed back in the original container and is retained in the evidence bag under the previously mentioned property number of 05-243. It is not advisable to attempt to copy this tape as further damage could result to the recorded material and there is an existing copy anyway.
+
+\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*NARRATIVE # 4\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* t Reported By: PARKINSON, GREGORY A. 9/26/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 9/26/05
+
+On 3-24.05 at 11:00 pm, a copy of tape 2 (case number 05-294) had been made for Det. Pagan by Evidence Specialist . The copy was turned over to Detective Recarey.
+
+On Friday, 09-23-05 at approimately 2:15 pm, I was in the process of reproducing audio tapes (micro and standard) to standard size when it was discovered, in the test review process, that tape number 2 was blank. I notified Sgt. Frick and Det. Recarey. I iiii ormed that they had a prior copy and I could use it to make a tape. I did so and when reviewinii lsigning the evidence sheet, I noticed Evidence Specialist had written "#2 is blank." le
+
+I obtained that copy from Det. Recarey and made a new copy on a standard size tape. The new copy was placed in the evidence bag under
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 24
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Use No. . . : 1-05-000368
+property number 05-294 with the blank tape.
+
+(Continued)
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 5 \*\*\*\*\*
+JA Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 9/26/05
+Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 9/28/05
+
+Copies of the tapes that were submitted into evidence were requested. Additionally, trash pulls were started on September 21, 2005. Sgt. Szarszewski made telephone contact with Tony Higgins, Supervisor of the Sanitation Department, and requested that trash be collected at the Epstein House located at 358 El Brillo in Palm Beach. Sgt. Szarszewski met with Sanitation worker, Jeff [REDACTED] and observed him enter the property at 358 El Brillo. Shortly thereafter, [REDACTED] exited the property and placed the three [REDACTED] trash bags in the empty well in the rear of the truck. [REDACTED] then drove away where he met with Sgt. Szarszewski who removed the bags from the well and placed them into one large black trash bag. The bag was returned to the Police Station where I was waiting for him. Upon his arrival, we inspected the bags where several notes and papers were found. These notes contained names of girls with times. Additionally, there was a note from [REDACTED] and Laura to Jeffrey Epstein on a notepad, which stated, "For a good time call [REDACTED] and Laura at [REDACTED]." Also, there was another telephone number on the note [REDACTED]. Also found was a written note, which stated, [REDACTED] can not come at 7 p.m. tomorrow because of soccer. These items were written on notepads that contain Jeffrey Epstein on the bottom of the notes. These items were placed into evidence for future follow up. I requested subpoenas for subscriber information on the telephone numbers listed above on the note from [REDACTED] and Laura. The cellular telephones [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] are both assigned to Cingular Cellular Service. Other notes were found within the trash on Jeffrey Epstein pad, papers that contained telephone numbers. One note had [REDACTED] with [REDACTED] written on it. This cellular number is assigned to Cingular Cellular Service. Another sheet had written [REDACTED] which is assigned to Bell South Telecommunications. The subpoenas were picked up and submitted to Cingular and Bell South Telecommunication for subscriber information.
+
+On September 22, 2005, I was informed by Sgt. Szarszewski that there would be no trash pick up as it was recycle pick up day. A request for copies of the micro and standard size cassettes were requested from crime scene to familiarize myself with the interviews conducted.
+
+On September 23, 2005, the tapes were received and I began to become familiar with the interviews that were conducted. Det. Krauel had met with Town of Palm Beach Sanitation worker, Jeff [REDACTED] and observed him enter the property of 358 El Brillo. Shortly thereafter, [REDACTED] exited the property and placed the three [REDACTED] trash bags in the empty well in the rear of the truck. [REDACTED] then drove away where he met with Det. Krauel who removed the bags from the well and placed them into one large black trash bag. The bag was returned to the Police Station where I was waiting for him. Upon his arrival, we inspected
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 25
+Program: CMS301L
+
+No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+the bags where several notes and papers were found. The notes will be inspected for future use. The items collected were placed into evidence.
+
+It became evident that some of the recordings were recorded with background noise and some interference. The calls most affected were the control phone calls from the victim to the suspect [REDACTED]. I obtained the graphic equalizer and discovered that the calls are able to be legible with the use of the equalizer by lowering the background noise and increasing voice gain. I also learned that a tape was broken during the coping of the tape. I returned the copy of the tape marked Property Number 05-243 to have it recopied to have an original in evidence and a working copy with the file.
+
+Upon researching the file, it was discovered that the suspect, [REDACTED] cellular calls were subpoenaed incorrectly. The suspect telephone number was 561-308-0282 and the original request was for 561-908-0282. I requested the information through Cingular Cellular Service from February 2005 through the present. The purpose was to have a record of [REDACTED] making calls to victim, Jeffrey Epstein and the frequency of calls. The request was submitted to the State Attorney's Office.
+
+Investigation Continues....
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 6 \*\*\*\*\*
+Reported By: KRAUEL, CURTIS D. 10/06/05
+Entered By: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 10/06/05
+
+On or about September 23, 2005 at approximately 0915 hours, I responded to 358 El Brillo and met with PB Sanitation worker Jeff [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] had been previously notified to assist in trash pulls at the residence of Jeffrey Epstein, 358 El Brillo, Palm Beach, Florida. I observed [REDACTED] enter the driveway of 358 El Brillo and remove several plastic bags of trash and place the contents into the back of an empty sanitation truck.
+
+I then followed [REDACTED] to a predetermined location and seized the trash from the truck. The trash was transported to the Palm Beach Police Department where I began sifting through its contents. There was a total of 4 [REDACTED] in color plastic bags and each contained documentation and correspondence for 358 El Brillo and Jeffrey Epstein. All documents of evidentiary value were removed and turned over to Det. Recarey for follow-up.
+
+On or about September 26, 2005 at approximately 0900 hours, I responded to 358 El Brillo and met with PB Sanitation worker Jessie [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] had been previously notified to assist in trash pulls at the residence of Jeffrey Epstein, 358 El Brillo, Palm Beach, Florida.
+
+I observed [REDACTED] enter the driveway of 358 El Brillo, where no trash was located within the receptacles. I left the area without incident
+
+### )ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 26 • 'ime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+!,..se No • 1-05-000368 and notified Det. Recarey to that affect.
+
+On or about September 27, 2005 at approximately 0915 hours, I minded to 358 El Brillo and met with PS Sanitation worker Jesse . I observed Me enter the driveway of 358 El Brillo and remove one plastic bag of trash and place it in the back of an empty sanitation truck.
+
+(Continued)
+
+I then followed to a predetermined location and seized the trash from the truck. The trash was transported to the Palm Beach Police Department where I began sifting through its contents. There was a total of 1 st in color plastic bag which contained correspondence for 358 El Br o. All documents of evidentiary value were removed and turned over to Det. Recarey for follow-up.
+
+On or about Monday October 3, 2005 at approximately 0915 hours, res onded to 358 El Brillo and met with PB Sanitation worker Jeff . I observed enter the driveway of 358 El Brillo and remove several plastic bags of trash and place the contents into the back of an empty sanitation truck.
+
+I then followed to a predetermined location and seized the trash from the truck. The trash was transported to the Palm Beach Police Department where I began sifting through its contents. There was a total of 7 in color plastja.bags with ared tie and 1 black in color bag which contained 2 sling in color plastic bags with a red tie. Each of the bags contained documentation and correspondence for 358 El Brillo and Jeffrey Epstein. Inside of one of the in color bags, I located abroken piece of ahard plastic or clear acrylic stick, which was shaped with small ridges. This device is commonly used as a sexual toy which is inserted into the vagina or anus for stimulation. This item, along with all documents of evidentiary value were removed and turned over to Det. Recarey for follow-up.
+
+On or about Tuesday October 4, 2005 at approximately 0928 hours, I responded to 358 El Brillo and met with PB Sanitation worker Jeff i . I observed enter the driveway of 358 El Brillo and remove several plastic bags of trash and place the contents into the side well of the sanitation truck. This side of the truck is separate from the rear of the truck and does not come into contact with other trash.
+
+I then followed to a predetermined location and seized the trash from the truck. The trash was transported to the Palm Beach Police Department where I began sifting through its contents. There was a total of 2 in color plastic bags which were tied at the top. Each of the bags contained documentation and correspondence for 158 El Brillo and Jeffrey Epstein. All documents of evidentiary value were removed and turned over to Det. Recarey for follow-up.
+
+On or about Wednesday October 5, 2005 at approximately 0928 hours, I
+
+### PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 27 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+No 1-05-000368 (Continued) res onded to 358 El Brillo and met with PB Sanitation worker Jeff I observed enter the driveway of 358 El Brillo and remove several plastic ueags trash and place the contents into the bed of the sanitation truck.
+
+I then followed to a predetermined location and seized the trash from the true . e trash was transported to the Palm Beach Police Department where I began sifting through its contents, with the assistance of Det. Recarey. There were a total of 2 bags, one of which was pill in color and tied in a knot at the top, and the other was a blac n color bag, which contained two in color trash bags along with loose debris. Each of the bags contained documentation and correspondence for 358 El Brillo and Jeffrey Epstein. All documents of evidentiary value were removed and turned over to Det. Recarey for follow-up.
+
+t\*\* \*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIvE # 7\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* k Reported By: RECAREY, 10/07/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO,WE A. 10/07/05
+
+I met with Det. Krauel and requested further assistance to maintain trash collections at Epstein's residence at 358 El Brillo Road. On October 3, 2005, at approximately 10:30 am, I was contacted by Sgt. Frick to respond to the Palm Beach Police Station. Det. Krauel had observed Jeff Epstein riding his bicycle on South County Road. Upon my arrival, I met with Sgt Frick who advised, as Epstein was currently in Town; we interview as to her involvement with Epstein and the girls that areL btought to his house. As we were to interview RIPI in the county, (outside of our jurisdiction), I contacted the Attorney s Office Investigation Division, and made contact with Assistant Supervisor Investigator Carlos Ortiz. I requested assistance to interview as the interview may occur in the county. Supervisor Ortiz assigned Investigator Mike Waites to assist us at the location and interview of
+
+Det. Dicks had responded to the address of and viewed her vehicle parked in the driveway. vehicle a red Plymouth Neon baring Florida Tag of H49-PKB wasiW illiin the driveway of 12247 72nd Court in Loxahatchee. Sgt Frick and I responded to 120th Ave and awaited the arrival of Investigator Mike Waites. Upon his arrival, he was briefed that should she wish to be interviewed within her home he would be needed. However, should agree to return to the police station for further questioning, he wou d not be needed. S t. Frick and I knocked on the door and met with was told that we were investigatin a claim involving Jeffrey Eps ein of El Brillo in Palm Beach. was asked if she wanted to accompany us back to the police station or further questioning. She was also told that at the conclusion of the interview she would be returned home. She agreed and wished to change her clothes prior to accompanying us back to the police station. At the conclusion of her changing clothes, she advised she was ready to go. I thanked Inv. Waites and advised she was going to voluntarily return to the police station.
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 28
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Se No. : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+
+Upon [REDACTED] s entry in the unmarked Detective vehicle, I placed a tape recorder within the vehicle to record any conversations within the vehicle. During the ride back to the police station, [REDACTED] advised she is attending Palm Beach Community College at the Palm Beach Gardens Campus and is majoring in journalism.
+
+Upon our arrival at the police station, [REDACTED] was brought to the interview room in the Detective Bureau. I explained to [REDACTED] that I appreciated her willingness to assist us and informed her that should she desire to leave at any time she may do so. I further explained the interview room door is only closed for privacy. [REDACTED] stated she understood. During the taped sworn interview, [REDACTED] was asked how she came in contact with Epstein. [REDACTED] stated back when she turned 17 years of age she was approached by a friend Molly in the Canopy Beach Resort in [REDACTED] Beach. [REDACTED] was asked if she wanted to make money.
+
+She was told she would have to provide a massage and should make \$200.00. [REDACTED] thought about the offer and agreed to meet with Jeffrey. MOLLY (Unknown last name) and Tony (Unknown last name) picked her up and she was taken to Epstein's house. Upon her arrival at the house, she was introduced to Epstein in the kitchen of the house. She was also introduced to a [REDACTED] female known to her as Sara. She was led upstairs to the main bedroom known to her as Jeff Epstein's bedroom. Sara arranged the massage table and covered the table with a sheet. She brought out the massage oils and laid them next to the massage bed. Sara then left the room and informed her Jeff would be in a minute. Jeff entered the bedroom wearing only a towel. He lay on the table onto his stomach and picked massage oil for [REDACTED] to rub on him. During the massage, [REDACTED] stated, He tried to touch me and I stopped him. I asked how he tried to touch her. He grabbed her buttocks and she felt uncomfortable. [REDACTED] also stated Epstein has a vibrator, which is large and [REDACTED] in color. [REDACTED] told Epstein, I'll massage you but I don't want to be touched. [REDACTED] stated she performed the massage naked. At the conclusion of the massage, Epstein paid [REDACTED] \$200.00 for the massage. He explained, I know you are not comfortable, but I'll pay you if you bring some girls. He told her the younger the better. [REDACTED] stated she once tried to bring a 23-year-old female and Epstein stated that the female was too old. [REDACTED] was asked how many girls she brought in total to Epstein. [REDACTED] stated six that she can remember. [REDACTED] stated she brought [REDACTED] and the victim in this case.
+
+I asked [REDACTED] which one was the youngest. [REDACTED] advised the victim was the youngest. [REDACTED] stated every girl she brought knew what to expect when they arrived. They were told they would provide a massage, possibly naked, and some touching. I asked her if the victim was aware. She stated every girl she brought knew what to expect. She explained she knew the victim wanted to make money. She approached the victim and explained about going to work for Jeff. The
+
+## )ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 29 Incident Report Program: CMS30114
+
+Time: 15:01:37
+
+se No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) victim agreed and arrangements were made to bring the victim to Bpstein's house on a weekend. stated that she and (later identified as OSP picked up the victim at the victim s house. They traveled to Epstein's House and entered through the kitchen door. They met with the house chef and Epstein s assistant Sara. The victim was introduced to Epstein while they were in the kitchen area. Sara led the victim upstairs and Epstein went upstairs. When the massage was over, the victim returned to the kitchen area, stated she was paid \$200.00 for bring the victim to Epstein's. stated the victim told her she was paid \$300.00 for the massage. c in the vehicle, pl. asked the victim what happened. The victim told her about th age and then they went Epstein. Srigther stated that she had changed her cellular number shopping. stated the victim was the last person she brought to to avoid being contacted by Sara. She continued that when Epstein announces to his assistant that he is traveling to Palm Beach, Sara would contact to arrange girls for Epstein. Sarah, later identified as Date of Birth 05-25-1979, had told that Je s es o ave his fun with the girls.
+
+I l'Iliutritlgrdis=dolittclaVlesM.Tuttre: with thedhn:e i s 2dped. stated that once her parents discovered that she was visiting eaves messages. With the assistance of we were able to identify Millir DaBAMMOMMOMM DOBIlla S DOB a, andIdellateliDOBSOMM,
+
+Sgt Frick entered the room and explained that based on her own statements, she had i licated herself with bringing underage girls to Epstein's house. was aware of what she had stated and wished ..,to assist further in opes to receive alesser charge. provided cellular telephone numbers for the girls she halillRoned previously. Additionally, she also rovided possible addresses and areas in which they lived. As IMO was being taken home in the vehicle, a tape recorder was place within the vehicle to record any conversations within the vehicle. During the drive back to her home, made the comment I m like aHeidi Fliess. (Hollywood Madam who sent girls to clients for sexual favors in California). was dropped off at her house without incident.
+
+Sgt Frick and I went toaMlIllnIIIIIIIIaIIIIIe in iinalt Florida in an attem t to speak withellibill'Illib. We met" with Mrs. at{ Mother) at the front door. We explained the ongoing investigation and felt that may have additional information as we had information that she had worked for Jeff. Mrs. allabintroduced us to her husband and allowed us entry into the home. We sat in t inning room and met with of Birth As she was under the age o eighteen, Mrs. was advised we would be speaking with her. She expressed, if her daughter had information she wanted to assist. As we interviewed she denied having any inappropriate encounters with Jeff (Epstein). She stated she had gone to Jeff s
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 30
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Se No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+House with [REDACTED] approximately eight months ago and sat in the kitchen with the house chef but nothing happened. As the parents were present during the interview, we felt that [REDACTED] was withholding information from us. She made several comments as to she has put the entire incident behind her. I left my direct telephone number and advised she wish to speak with me again to telephone me. Sgt Frick and I thanked Mrs. [REDACTED] for her time and left the area. She stated she would ask her again after we left as to what happened at Epstein's house. I informed her that [REDACTED] had my telephone number and hopefully she would call.
+
+Sgt Frick and I then attempted contact with [REDACTED] at [REDACTED] in [REDACTED]. We met with [REDACTED] who stated [REDACTED] was her daughter. [REDACTED] was at the Wellington Mall and was not home. We explained the ongoing investigation and felt the [REDACTED] may have additional information as we had information that she had worked for Jeff. We left our phone numbers and asked her to telephone me upon her daughter's return. We then left the area.
+
+On October 4, 2005, at approximately, 8:05 am, Sgt Frick had retrieved a voice mail message from [REDACTED]. She stated she had spoken with her daughter and she had information as to what occurred at Jeff's house. I contacted [REDACTED] who stated her daughter was in the shower at the moment and would be traveling back to Orlando to attend College. I informed her I would be en route to her home in [REDACTED]. Det. Dawson and I drove to the [REDACTED] home and met with [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. During a sworn taped statement, [REDACTED] stated she was taken to the house by [REDACTED]. She was told she could make money working for Jeff. She was told she would have to provide a massage to Jeff. [REDACTED] stated upon her arrival to the house she was brought to the kitchen area by [REDACTED].
+
+They met with the house chef and Haley stayed in the kitchen. She was introduced to Sara, Jeff's assistant and was brought upstairs to the mater bedroom. Sara prepared the room and massage table for a massage. Epstein entered the room and she provided a massage. [REDACTED] stated she kept her clothes on during the massage. She stated sometime during the massage Epstein grabbed her buttocks and pulled her close to him. [REDACTED] said she was wierded out by the incident involving Jeff. At the conclusion of the massage, she was paid \$200.00 for the massage. I asked [REDACTED] if she has any formal training in massages to which she replied no. I asked her if [REDACTED] received any monies for taking her to perform the massage. [REDACTED] stated [REDACTED] also received money for taking her there. [REDACTED] stated she went with [REDACTED] and another girl, [REDACTED] to Jeff's house once. [REDACTED] stated she waited in the kitchen with [REDACTED], while [REDACTED] was taken upstairs by Sara. [REDACTED] stated she only did the massage once, as she was wierded out by the whole experience. At the conclusion of the interview and the tape was stopped, I was informed that Sara had attempted to reach [REDACTED] via cell phone. A voice mail message on October 4, 2005 at 10:59 am, revealed a female voice who identified herself as Sara who requested her to call her back reference the
+
+### Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 31 Time: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+.;.-se No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) police questio ng. This voice mail message was recorded onto a micro cassette. rovided the incoming telephone number as 917-855-3363. .....stated she inadvertently told about the police investigation because had called her to tell her about how she just received a rental car from Jeff Epstein. ........b had called her to tell her that she was given a rental car, a 2005 Silver Nissan Sentra, to utilize to visit family and visit Jeff. se asked her what was going on at the house that the police would be asking questions. flestateda then called Jeff and Sara and asked what was going on reference the ongoing police investigation. According tea Sara has since then bee g to contact her to ask about the police questions. I instructed not to contact Sara and do not provide any more information to MEMNIIMas she would notify Jeff Epstein and Sara what was transpiring.
+
+Investigation Continues...
+
+\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIfl # a \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\* Reported By: LEE, LA'MONT 10/07/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIB A. 10/07/05
+
+On March 30, 2005, I was asked by Sgt. Daniel Szarszewski to begin conducting surveillance and trash pulls reference Detective Pagan conducting a criminal investigation involving Jeffrey Epstein. I was advised that Epstein was possibly engaging in sexual contact with young females.
+
+On March 30, 2005, I made contact with Town of Palm Beach Sanitation Office Supervisor Tony Higgins and requested trash pulls for 358 El Brillo Way to begin on March 31, 2005.
+
+On March 31, 2005 at 9:20 a.m., I responded to the area of 358 El Brillo Wa and met with Town of Palm Beach sanitation employee, Jeffrey . I observed enter the driveway of 358 El Brillo Way, co ect the trash ags rom Epstein's propert and lace the contents into an empty sanitation truck. I followed to a nearby area, were he turned over seventeen plastic ras ags, which were collected from Epstein's property.
+
+I took the trash bags to the sanitation department were I sifted through its contents. I collected mail correspondence from Armani Exchange addressed to , Jeffrey E. Epstein notepaper within... er an important message notepaper addressed to J.E dated 03/29/05 at 8:15 p.m. reference Peggy Sea al U.S Airways boarding pass copy for passenger, Janusz Banasiak, County, Maryland Health Department food service ID NO#40820 or anusz Banasiak and Ghislaine Maxwell notepaper with names and phone numbers. Photocopies of the trash collected were attached with the supplement. Detective Pagan was advised of the contents that were collected for evidentiary value.
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 32
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Case No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+On March 31, 2005, Sgt. Daniel Szarszewski requested that I set up a surveillance vehicle on El Brillo Way and conduct video surveillance of the front exterior of Epstein's residence. At 3:00 p.m., I set up a surveillance vehicle equipped with a video monitoring device. The surveillance vehicle was parked on El Brillo Way approximately fifty feet east of Epstein's driveway. The purpose of the video surveillance was to gather investigative intelligence by monitoring and recording all vehicle and pedestrian traffic entering and leaving Epstein's property.
+
+The video surveillance tapes were changed daily with a new Maxell T-160 VHS tape. Video surveillance was established for Epstein's from March 31, 2005 through April 05, 2005. On April 05, 2005, video surveillance was concluded. I reviewed the video tapes and advised Detective Pagan the surveillance videos yielded no evidentiary value.
+
+On April 01, 2005 at 9:30 a.m., I responded to the area of 358 El Brillo Way to meet with Town of Palm Beach sanitation employee, Jessie [REDACTED]. While parked in the area of 358 El Brillo Way waiting to collect Epstein's trash, I observed a [REDACTED] female, who I recognized as [REDACTED] from her Florida driver's license photograph. I made no contact with [REDACTED]. While parked in the area, I also observed Epstein's GMC Yukon truck leave the property as well as other vehicles arrive and park across the street from the property. The occupants of these vehicles appeared to be housekeepers, maintenance men, and gardeners.
+
+At 9:38 a.m., I met with Town of Palm Beach sanitation employee, Jessie [REDACTED]. I observed [REDACTED] enter the driveway of 358 El Brillo Way and collect the trash from Epstein's property. I followed Jessie to a predetermined area at which time I collected the trash bags from the sanitation truck. I transported the trash bags to the sanitation department, where I sifted through its contents. I collected mail correspondences addressed to Jeffrey Epstein, automotive records and personal documents for Janusz Banasiak and Beata Banasiak as well as Jeffrey Epstein notepaper with the names and appointment times for [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. No last names or other personal information was written on the notepaper.
+
+While sifting through Epstein's trash, I also collected a three-inch purple finger size object, which had a broken end. The object appeared to be a broke piece from a sexual toy similar to a (Cyclone Vibrator) possibly used for rectal gratification. The sexual object was photographed for Detective Pagan, packaged in a biohazard evidence bag (possible body fluids) and secured as investigative evidence. All items collected from Epstein's trash were turned over to Detective Pagan for evidentiary purposes.
+
+On April 05, 2005 at 9:18 a.m., I met with Town of Palm Beach sanitation employee, Jessie [REDACTED]. I observed [REDACTED] enter the driveway of 358 El Brillo Way and collect the trash from Epstein's property. I followed Jessie to a predetermined area at which time I
+
+### ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 33 ime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) collected the trash bags from the sanitation truck. I transported the trash bags to the sanitation department, where I sifted through its contents. I collected mail correspondences addressed to Jeffrey Epstein as well as notepaper (Important Message) with names and telephone numbers. The following are items collected from Epstein s trash.
+
+Joanne O. (714-0546 blank piece of paper (561-881-8118) black paper (65 - 6) black paper (917-783-4113) David (772-546-6952) MSN Hotmail web page with email address (adrianamucinskaOhotmail.com)
+
+The following items were documented for Detective Pagan s investigation for evidentiary purposes.
+
+On April 06, 08, 11, 12, 13, 15, 2005, at approximately 9:30 a.m, met with Town of Palm Beach sanitation employees. I observed the employee enter the driveway of 358 El Brillo Way and collect the trash from Epstein's property. I followed the employee to a predetermined area at which time I collected the trash bags from the sanitation truck. I transported the trash bags to the sanitation department, where I sifted through its contents.
+
+All of the documents collected from Epstein's trash during my assistance were turned over to Detective Pagan for evidentiary purposes.
+
+On June 14, 2005, Detective Pagan contacted me and advised that the airplane belonging o e rey Epstein of 358 El Brillo Way was parked at the Palm Beach International Airport.
+
+Detective Pagan requested that I begin trash pulls for the purpose of gathering evidence and intelligence.
+
+I made contact with Town of Palm Beach Sanitation Office Supervisor Tony Higgins and requested trash pulls for 358 El Brillo Way to begin on June 15, 2005.
+
+On June 15, 2005, I met with a sanitation employee. I observed the employee enter the driveway of 358 El Brillo Way and collect the trash from Epstein s property. I followed the employee to a predetermined area at which time I collected the trash bags from the sanitation truck. I transported the trash bags to the sanitation department, where I sifted through its contents. The trash yielded negative results and no evidence was collected.
+
+No further trash was collected throughout the week due to the fact that Epstein s security gates remained closed throughout the week; therefore, the sanitation employees were unable to gain access onto the property for collection of the trash.
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 34
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Lase No. . . : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+
+All evidence and intelligence gathered by this officer has been turned over to the detective bureau and no further action has been taken by this officer.
+
+End of supplement.
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 9 \*\*\*\*\*
+A Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 10/07/05
+Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 10/10/05
+
+On October 4, 2005, I made telephone contact with [REDACTED] who had left several messages on voice mail. During the message, she advised she was not completely truthful when we met in person but would like to speak with me to advise what had happened. She further advised she did not want to speak of this incident in front of her mother. At approximately 15:48 pm, I made telephone contact with [REDACTED] at [REDACTED]. During a taped recorded statement, [REDACTED] stated the following: Approximately a year ago, when she was sixteen years of age, [REDACTED] took her to Jeff's house twice. The first time she went, [REDACTED] drove to the house. They entered through the kitchen area where she was introduced to Sara and Jeff. She was taken upstairs to a bedroom by Sara who set the room up with a massage bed and brought out the oils to use. Jeff then entered the room wearing a towel. He lay on the table and picked out a lotion for [REDACTED] to rub on him. At one point during the massage, he tried to remove her shirt at which point she became very upset and discontinued the massage. Both [REDACTED] and Jeffrey had a verbal disagreement at which time she left without being paid. She met with Haley [REDACTED] who was sitting in the kitchen and told her let's go. [REDACTED] advised she received no money for that day. [REDACTED] also said that [REDACTED] had told her if she was uncomfortable with what was going on, to let him know and he'll stop. She knew that the more you do the more you are paid.
+
+Several weeks later, [REDACTED] advised she agreed to be taken a second time by [REDACTED]. Once they arrived at the residence, Haley sat in the kitchen and Sara took her upstairs to the [REDACTED] bedroom again. Sara set the room up with a massage bed and brought out the oils to use. Jeff then entered the room wearing a towel. He lay on the table and picked out a lotion for [REDACTED] to rub on him. At one point during the massage, he tried to touch her buttocks. As [REDACTED] was wearing tight jeans and had a tight belt on Jeff was unable to touch her buttocks. Jeff then rolled onto his back during the massage; he attempted to touch her breasts. [REDACTED] then became upset again and told him she didn't want to be touched. [REDACTED] discontinued the massage and was paid \$200.00. [REDACTED] then went downstairs where [REDACTED] was waiting for her. She told [REDACTED] she wanted to leave. [REDACTED] said she never returned to the house. [REDACTED] stated she is aware that her friend, [REDACTED] was also at the house and had a problem with Jeff. She provided a telephone number
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 35
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Case No. . . : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+
+for ~~[REDACTED]~~ The interview was concluded and the micro cassettes were turn in as evidence.
+
+On October 5, 2005, I researched the incoming telephone number that had left ~~[REDACTED]~~ a message. The telephone number, ~~[REDACTED]~~ was assigned to ATT/Cingular Cellular service. I prepared a subpoena request and faxed the request to the State Attorney s Office. Information requested was subscriber information as well as all incoming and outgoing calls for the months of September and October 2005.
+
+I later researched ~~[REDACTED]~~ and discovered she resides in ~~[REDACTED]~~ Det. Dawson and I drove to ~~[REDACTED]~~ and met with ~~[REDACTED]~~ at her residence ~~[REDACTED]~~ in ~~[REDACTED]~~.
+
+~~[REDACTED]~~ agreed to speak with us in the kitchen area. During a sworn taped statement, ~~[REDACTED]~~ stated the following: On or about November 2004, she was approached by ~~[REDACTED]~~ and asked if she wanted to make money. She agreed and was told she would provide a massage to wealthy man in Palm Beach. ~~[REDACTED]~~ picked her up and drove her to a house in Palm Beach. She was brought into the kitchen area of the house. She further stated that ~~[REDACTED]~~ and ~~[REDACTED]~~ went with them. They were brought into the kitchen where she was introduced to Jeff and other females. ~~[REDACTED]~~ stated she was introduced to a helper of Jeff; the female was described as ~~[REDACTED]~~ female (unknown name), with blond hair. She stated that the assistant was familiar with ~~[REDACTED]~~. The assistant set up the massage table and put out lotions to be used. She told ~~[REDACTED]~~ Jeff would available in a minute. Jeff entered the room wearing only a towel. Jeff lay on the massage table and picked a lotion to rub on his thighs and back.
+
+~~[REDACTED]~~ further stated that during the massage Jeff asked her to remove her clothes. She complied and removed her pants and blouse. ~~[REDACTED]~~ didn't remember if she had removed her bra but feels that she did. ~~[REDACTED]~~ was certain that she stayed in her thong underwear. ~~[REDACTED]~~ continued the massage and at one point she straddled him to massage his back, which touched his buttocks with hers. ~~[REDACTED]~~ was instructed to return to the ground at which time Jeff turned to have his chest rubbed. ~~[REDACTED]~~ advised it was at this time she is sure he was masturbating. ~~[REDACTED]~~ did not want to look at his penis area because she was uncomfortable. Jeff removed a large ~~[REDACTED]~~ vibrator and turned it on. ~~[REDACTED]~~ stated he began rubbing the vibrator over her thong underwear on her vaginal area. Shortly thereafter, Jeff ejaculated and removed himself from the table. He walked over to where the shower was and opened the ~~[REDACTED]~~ door. She waited as he was taking a shower in her direct view. When I asked ~~[REDACTED]~~ how old she was when this occurred, she stated she had just turned seventeen. At the conclusion of the shower, ~~[REDACTED]~~ was paid either \$350.00 or \$400.00. She stated she wasn't sure, but knows it was close to \$400.00. At the conclusion of the interview, ~~[REDACTED]~~ stated she never returned to provide a massage for Jeff. She advised she was ashamed and uncomfortable with the situation.
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 36
+Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No. . . : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+
+Det. Dawson and I then left the area and responded to the [REDACTED] where [REDACTED] and all the above-mentioned girls had attended. I met with School Police Officer, Off [REDACTED]. I explained I was looking for a previous student who attended [REDACTED] I inquired about [REDACTED]. I further explained that I was working a case in which most of the girls I have interviewed are either witnesses or victims and felt that [REDACTED] may be one as well. Officer [REDACTED] researched his previous student records and found [REDACTED]. She attended the same year and graduated in the same year as the other girls. I was provided the last known address of [REDACTED]
+
+At approximately 2:10 pm, Det. Dawson and I met with [REDACTED] at her residence, [REDACTED] in [REDACTED]. As [REDACTED] was only seventeen years of age, I had notified her mother, Mrs. [REDACTED] that she would be interviewed reference an ongoing investigation in Palm Beach. I assured her that her daughter was not a suspect. I explained the possibility of her being either a witness or victim. Mrs. [REDACTED] advised she wanted [REDACTED] to cooperate and consented to the interview. During a sworn taped statement, [REDACTED] stated the following: at the age of sixteen, during the month of September 2004, she was approached by [REDACTED] for a chance to make money. [REDACTED] was friends with the friends of [REDACTED] and knew the same people. [REDACTED] had been previously told by her friends what [REDACTED] did for Jeff. [REDACTED] called a person known to [REDACTED] as Sara and scheduled the appointment. [REDACTED] picked [REDACTED] up and drove her to Palm Beach to a street called Brillo Way. They drove to the end of the street and entered a large driveway. They entered the kitchen area of the house and met with Jeff. [REDACTED] was introduced to Jeff. [REDACTED] led [REDACTED] upstairs to the main bedroom area and set up the room with a massage table and set out the oils. [REDACTED] dimmed the lights and turned on soft music. [REDACTED] exited the room and Jeff entered the room wearing only a towel. Jeff picked oils and instructed her to rub his legs, under his buttocks, back and chest area. Jeff asked her to get comfortable. [REDACTED] advised she did not remove her clothes. She was wearing tight jeans and a cropped tank top exposing her belly area. During the massage, Jeff removed his towel. As [REDACTED] rubbed his chest area, Jeff attempted to reach down her pants through the buttocks area, however was unable to due to the tightness of the jeans and a tight belt. [REDACTED] advised Jeff began to masturbate as she rubbed his chest. Jeff moaned as she rubbed his chest. She observed he was continuing to masturbate and attempted to reach up her tank top and touch her breasts. [REDACTED] pulled back and Jeff stopped. However, he kept masturbating until he climaxed. He cleaned himself with the towel he was previously wearing. I asked [REDACTED] if she knew the difference between circumcised and not circumcised. She explained she knew and advised Jeff was circumcised. [REDACTED] was paid \$200.00 for the massage and left the area. She met with [REDACTED] who was waiting in the kitchen area and left the house.
+
+[REDACTED] then explained she never provided another massage for Jeff. She did however, go to the house with [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] as they
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 37
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Asse No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+took another friend of [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] advised she was present when [REDACTED] went to work for Jeff. She advised she rode over and sat in the kitchen area with [REDACTED] to wait for [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] advised that while they waited for [REDACTED], the house chef prepared lunch for them, as it was almost lunchtime. As [REDACTED] was finished with the massage, they left the area. I asked [REDACTED] if [REDACTED] ever told what would be expected of her when she provided a massage. [REDACTED] stated yes, [REDACTED] told her that a massage would be expected possibly naked and possibly some touching involved. [REDACTED] has no formal training in providing massages.
+
+[REDACTED] spoke about a third and last time she went to Jeff's house. [REDACTED] drove another girl, [REDACTED] who is [REDACTED] friend, to Jeff's house. [REDACTED] stated she knew that [REDACTED] had made money providing girls for Jeff and she wanted to do the same. [REDACTED] took them in the kitchen area of the house and introduced [REDACTED] to Sara. [REDACTED] and Sara took [REDACTED] upstairs to the main bedroom. [REDACTED] advised she doesn't know what happened as [REDACTED] did not speak about what happened in the room. [REDACTED] received \$100.00 from [REDACTED] for going with her to Jeff's house and recommending [REDACTED] was unable to remember [REDACTED] telephone number. The interview was concluded and we left the area.
+
+Investigation Continues...
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 10 \*\*\*\*\*
+Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 10/09/05
+Entered By: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 10/10/05
+
+On October 6, 2005, Det. Dawson and I went to [REDACTED] located in [REDACTED]. We met with [REDACTED] of Students, [REDACTED]. I explained to Mr. [REDACTED] that we were investigating a crime within the Town of Palm Beach and felt that a student, [REDACTED] may have information. [REDACTED] confirmed that [REDACTED] is a student and currently on the soccer team for [REDACTED]. She was in computer class at the time of our arrival. [REDACTED] sent a security guard to locate [REDACTED] in class and bring her to the office. Mr. [REDACTED] allowed us to interview [REDACTED] in an empty conference room.
+
+At 11:45 am I met [REDACTED] with [REDACTED] and explained to her why we there to interview her. She advised she was aware of the ongoing investigation. [REDACTED] stated she had previously spoken with [REDACTED] who told her she was interviewed by detectives. During a sworn taped statement, [REDACTED] stated she knew that Haley [REDACTED] worked for Jeff in Palm Beach. [REDACTED] advised she has been there many times for massages. I asked her if she had formal training in providing massages, [REDACTED] stated she did not. [REDACTED] advised she was told what was expected of her by providing massages and would have to remove clothing but if she felt uncomfortable just to say so and Jeff would stop pushing the issue. [REDACTED] began providing massages and advised she kept her clothes on. She considered Jeff a pervert who kept
+
+### \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 38 Line: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+.
+
+\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
+
+Ise No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) pushing to go further and further. —explained she would keep telling him she had a boyfriend and that it would not be right to her boyfriend. It wasn t until recentlyeadmitted to removing her clothes and staying in her thong underwear to provide a massage. oplibexplained Jeff wanted to be rubbed on his back and recently he began turning over to have her rub his chest as he masturbated. He would try to touch her breasts as she rubbed his chest. S stated, Jeff would tr to et away with more and more on each massage. Originally, drove her to the house for the original massage. aliMeleft Sara er cell phone number and every time Jeff would come into town, Sara would call her for an appointment. Each time she went, Sara would meet her at the kitchen door rea. She would bring her upstairs and prepare the massage table. advised Jeff would ask her questions about herself. He knew she was a soccer player and would be attendingeall, I asked if he knew her real age, stated Jeff didn t care. The most recent massage she provIlas III October 1, 2005. During the massage she asked Jeff if she could borrow one of his vehicles to visit her family and boyfriend in Orlando. Jeff had told she could borrow one of his vehicles but later stated he would rent her a car. She continued with the massage as Jefhlig o obed her buttocks and caressed the buttocks cheeks. I asked if she was wearing undergarments to which she replied her thong underwear. Once he tried to touch her breasts she would pull away from him and h would stop. Mar was asked if he ever used a vibrator on her. was aware of the vibrator but advised she never would allow him to use the vibrator on her. She described the vibrator as a large IllIkvibrator with ahuge head on the tip of the vibrator. She state eept the vibrator in acloset near the massage table. IMINNiadvised she had been doing the massage for approximately two years, which meant she would have started doing massages for Jeff at the age of sixteen.
+
+a stated she was contacted by Sara on October 3, 2005. Sara had informed her that Jeff had rented her a new Nissan Sentra and she should come by the house tq2122s it up. Sara informedillell she would have the car for a month. III= stated Jeff knew her car was not working properly and had missed appointments in the past because of her car being inoperable. NMI' explained the car is currently parked next to the Gym field. I asked her if she ever took any one to the house. allaakexplained she took a friend of hers who has returned to Orlando to attend college. I asked she ever allowed another female in the room. ellaadvised no one was brought into the room with her. At the conclusion of the interview, Det. Dawson and I went to the Gym area and located the Silver Nissan Sentra bearing Florida tag X98-APM. The vehicle is registered to Dollar rent a car out of the Palm Beach International Airport.
+
+Tele hon contact was made with, the victim's mother, at I explained to her that I was following up on this case an provided a complete update on the case.
+
+'nvestigation Continues.
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 39
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Use No. : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 11 \*\*\*\*\*
+IA Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 10/21/05
+Entered By: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 10/21/05
+
+On October 10, 2005, at approximately 2:30 p.m., I made telephone contact with [REDACTED]. During a taped conversation, [REDACTED] was told of an ongoing investigation in which I felt she had information pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein. [REDACTED] explained she met Epstein when she was just sixteen years of age. She was approached by [REDACTED], a friend who also had previously gone to Epstein's house for massages. [REDACTED] advised she was working at the Wellington Mall when she was approached. [REDACTED] told her that she would have to provide a massage to Epstein and she would have to perform this massage naked. [REDACTED] thought about the offer and stated she could make \$200.00 for only 30 minutes of work. She agreed to perform the massage and [REDACTED] set the appointment for her that same day. [REDACTED] remembered it was a weekend as she only worked at the mall on the weekends. [REDACTED] took her to the house where she was introduced to Sara, Jeff Epstein's assistant. Sara took her upstairs to a [REDACTED] bedroom. [REDACTED] explained that as she was walking up the stairs she observed several photographs of naked women along the walls and tables of the house. [REDACTED] further explained that she was brought into the bedroom where Sara prepared the room by setting up the massage table and provided the oils for her to rub on Epstein.
+
+Epstein entered the room and introduced himself. Epstein lay on the table and told her to get comfortable. [REDACTED] could not remember if he was naked or if he entered the room with a towel. [REDACTED] stated she provided the massage wearing only her panties. She continued rubbing his legs, thighs and feet. [REDACTED] advised he turned over onto his back. She continued to rub his legs with the oils. Epstein touched her breasts and began to masturbate. I asked [REDACTED] if she knew what circumcised and un-circumcised meant. [REDACTED] stated circumcised is when the penis has no foreskin and the head of the penis is visible. [REDACTED] said Epstein is circumcised. [REDACTED] began to cry on the telephone and stated she had been to his house hundreds of times over a two-year period. She claimed to have made thousands of dollars during her visits. [REDACTED] stated she could not remember how many times exactly she went to Epstein's home but said it was a lot.
+
+[REDACTED] became more upset, crying hysterically and stated she was paid and instructed to have sex with Epstein's assistant, [REDACTED] by Epstein. Epstein continued to watch them have sex and masturbated himself as they had sex with each other. She further stated that things escalated further and further. Epstein used sexual toys such as vibrators, rubber penises and strap-on penises on [REDACTED]. Additionally, [REDACTED] stated he performed oral sex on her numerous times. She claimed he (Epstein) put his fingers inside her vagina while he masturbated in an attempt to make her climax. [REDACTED] could not continue and wanted some time to regain her composure. I explained to [REDACTED] to take her time. After taking several minutes to regain her composure I
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749458/EFTA02749458.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749458/EFTA02749458.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d01a66ce48105702d2289809d79a89c5bd3f99ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749458/EFTA02749458.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1988 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749458.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 39,
+ "chars": 106522,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 45.5,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_17.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_18.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 54.269999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.12800000000004,
+ 54.269999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.12800000000004,
+ 79.38
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.96000000000004,
+ 79.38
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 205.02,
+ 53.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 397.79999999999995,
+ 53.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 397.79999999999995,
+ 80.19
+ ],
+ [
+ 205.02,
+ 80.19
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 195.228,
+ 49.41
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.84400000000005,
+ 49.41
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.84400000000005,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 195.228,
+ 72.9
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 195.228,
+ 49.41
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.00800000000004,
+ 49.41
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.00800000000004,
+ 74.52
+ ],
+ [
+ 195.228,
+ 74.52
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 52.650000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.68,
+ 52.650000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.68,
+ 77.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 77.76
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 53.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.84400000000005,
+ 53.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.84400000000005,
+ 77.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 77.76
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 205.02,
+ 54.269999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 397.79999999999995,
+ 54.269999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 397.79999999999995,
+ 81.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 205.02,
+ 81.0
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 198.89999999999998,
+ 53.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.456,
+ 53.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.456,
+ 78.57000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.89999999999998,
+ 78.57000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 197.676,
+ 54.269999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.84400000000005,
+ 54.269999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.84400000000005,
+ 78.57000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 197.676,
+ 78.57000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "***EMPLOYER INFORMATION***",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 181.76399999999998,
+ 214.64999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 359.24399999999997,
+ 214.64999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 359.24399999999997,
+ 225.99000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 181.76399999999998,
+ 225.99000000000004
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "***** OTHER PERSON INFORMATION - # 6 *****",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 22.644,
+ 294.03
+ ],
+ [
+ 257.03999999999996,
+ 294.03
+ ],
+ [
+ 257.03999999999996,
+ 306.18
+ ],
+ [
+ 22.644,
+ 306.18
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "***EMPLOYER INFORMATION***",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 178.09199999999998,
+ 419.58000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 354.96,
+ 419.58000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 354.96,
+ 430.9200000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 178.09199999999998,
+ 430.9200000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "***** OTHER PERSON INFORMATION - # 7 *****",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 22.644,
+ 487.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 252.75599999999997,
+ 487.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 252.75599999999997,
+ 499.77
+ ],
+ [
+ 22.644,
+ 499.77
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "***** OTHER PERSON INFORMATION - # 8 *****",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 22.644,
+ 614.79
+ ],
+ [
+ 250.308,
+ 614.79
+ ],
+ [
+ 250.308,
+ 626.13
+ ],
+ [
+ 22.644,
+ 626.13
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": ">ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT \nPage: 12 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 29.629840850830078,
+ 51.03
+ ],
+ [
+ 571.7548828125,
+ 51.03
+ ],
+ [
+ 571.7548828125,
+ 79.9490966796875
+ ],
+ [
+ 29.629840850830078,
+ 79.9490966796875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 14 rime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 27.191354751586914,
+ 55.08000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 572.2975463867188,
+ 55.08000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 572.2975463867188,
+ 83.707763671875
+ ],
+ [
+ 27.191354751586914,
+ 83.707763671875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": ")ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 15 rime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 30.989463806152344,
+ 51.03
+ ],
+ [
+ 575.794921875,
+ 51.03
+ ],
+ [
+ 575.794921875,
+ 79.2322998046875
+ ],
+ [
+ 30.989463806152344,
+ 79.2322998046875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": ")ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 17 \nrime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 26.760000228881836,
+ 54.54168701171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 568.8339233398438,
+ 54.54168701171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 568.8339233398438,
+ 80.070556640625
+ ],
+ [
+ 26.760000228881836,
+ 80.070556640625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": ")ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT \nIncident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 29.190441131591797,
+ 52.650000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 573.0789794921875,
+ 52.650000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 573.0789794921875,
+ 80.66912841796875
+ ],
+ [
+ 29.190441131591797,
+ 80.66912841796875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": ")ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 21 \nrime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 21.689998626708984,
+ 51.03
+ ],
+ [
+ 567.8077392578125,
+ 51.03
+ ],
+ [
+ 567.8077392578125,
+ 77.19415283203125
+ ],
+ [
+ 21.689998626708984,
+ 77.19415283203125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 22 \nime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 26.239999771118164,
+ 51.84
+ ],
+ [
+ 567.5193481445312,
+ 51.84
+ ],
+ [
+ 567.5193481445312,
+ 77.96417236328125
+ ],
+ [
+ 26.239999771118164,
+ 77.96417236328125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": ")ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 26 \u2022 \n'ime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 22.049335479736328,
+ 53.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 581.3280029296875,
+ 53.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 581.3280029296875,
+ 78.40924072265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 22.049335479736328,
+ 78.40924072265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 27 \nIncident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 195.84,
+ 56.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 568.852783203125,
+ 56.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 568.852783203125,
+ 82.46417236328125
+ ],
+ [
+ 195.84,
+ 82.46417236328125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": ")ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT \nPage: 29 Incident Report Program: CMS30114",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 31.192344665527344,
+ 51.84
+ ],
+ [
+ 577.4912109375,
+ 51.84
+ ],
+ [
+ 577.4912109375,
+ 81.07928466796875
+ ],
+ [
+ 31.192344665527344,
+ 81.07928466796875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 52.650000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.84400000000005,
+ 52.650000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.84400000000005,
+ 76.14
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 76.14
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 31 \nTime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 26.06999969482422,
+ 56.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 570.417724609375,
+ 56.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 570.417724609375,
+ 82.83416748046875
+ ],
+ [
+ 26.06999969482422,
+ 82.83416748046875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 31,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 56.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.068,
+ 56.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.068,
+ 80.19
+ ],
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 80.19
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 33 \nime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 32,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 26.060001373291016,
+ 55.89000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 566.732177734375,
+ 55.89000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 566.732177734375,
+ 82.213134765625
+ ],
+ [
+ 26.060001373291016,
+ 82.213134765625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 35,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 197.06400000000002,
+ 56.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.68,
+ 56.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.68,
+ 81.81
+ ],
+ [
+ 197.06400000000002,
+ 81.81
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "_____________________________________________________________________________ \nate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 38\nLine: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 37,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 27.69382667541504,
+ 54.7022705078125
+ ],
+ [
+ 570.0791625976562,
+ 54.7022705078125
+ ],
+ [
+ 570.0791625976562,
+ 84.40484619140625
+ ],
+ [
+ 27.69382667541504,
+ 84.40484619140625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 91
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 558
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 615
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 577
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 37
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 110
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 508
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 97
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 89
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 117
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 577
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 121
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 583
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 54
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 111
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 31,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 32,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 97
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 33,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 34,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 35,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 661
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 36,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 37,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 656
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 38,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749458"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749458/_page_0_Picture_17.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749458/_page_0_Picture_17.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aefe38b3a42525ed0f800f04e098944110400f8b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749458/_page_0_Picture_17.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:60278c1434bff0266f8dc28ee4380d3f615399fa2e476064dc88d69b319d05b0
+size 11868
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749458/_page_0_Picture_18.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749458/_page_0_Picture_18.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5706f444987aaf3b42cbd08dad91cf359c8a9de4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749458/_page_0_Picture_18.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:412b740776cda802c50055cc54f8a25703c47fc7c910db4ca7c4e42dfe302b98
+size 7124
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749497/EFTA02749497.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749497/EFTA02749497.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81f6f5acd0dbda083bd63d95e392819ae6f7e6d6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749497/EFTA02749497.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1061 @@
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 40
+Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No. : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+
+explained that I would travel to meet with her in person as I felt she had additional information to provide. I met with Sgt. Frick and explained the importance to meet with [redacted] in person. Sgt. Frick agreed and made arraignments for Det. Dawson and I to meet with [redacted] in [redacted]
+
+On October 11, 2005, at 4:10 p.m., Det. Dawson and I met with [redacted] and her friend, [redacted] at [redacted] in [redacted] wanted to have [redacted] present for support. I explained to her that I did not have a problem as long as she wanted [redacted] present during the interview. [redacted] stated she wanted her present. I explained that as [redacted] was present she was not allowed to comment or ask any questions during the interview. She was only there to comfort [redacted] should the interview upset her.
+
+During a sworn taped statement, [redacted] explained how everything began. She said she was brought through the kitchen area where she met Sara for the first time. She was led to the [redacted] bedroom, Epstein's room. [redacted] explained that as she was walking up the stairs she observed several photographs of naked women along the walls and tables of the house. [redacted] further explained that she was brought into the bedroom, where Sara prepared the room by setting up the massage table and provided the oils for her to rub on Epstein. [redacted] explained she remembered the steam room area, which contained two large showers. Epstein entered the room from the steam room area and introduced himself. Epstein lay on the table and told her to get comfortable. [redacted] removed her skirt and kept her shirt on. She could not remember if he was naked or if he entered the room with a towel. Epstein then instructed her to remove her shirt. [redacted] removed her shirt and remembered she was not wearing a bra. [redacted] stated she provided the massage wearing only her panties. She continued rubbing his legs, thighs and feet. [redacted] advised he turned over onto his back. She continued to rub his legs with the oils. Epstein touched her breasts and began to masturbate. Epstein ejaculated which meant the massage was over. At the conclusion of the massage, [redacted] was paid \$200.00. They walked together downstairs where Sara and [redacted] were waiting. [redacted] stated [redacted] received an unknown amount of money for taking her to Epstein. Epstein instructed to leave her cellular telephone number so that he could contact her when he is in town.
+
+[redacted] explained that she continued to go to Epstein's house and became a regular at the house. She could not provide an exact number but claimed she had been their hundreds of times. She claimed sexual activities did not occur every time she was there. There were times she went to dinners and parties with Epstein. [redacted] explained that things began to escalate more than the massage. The encounters included bringing in his assistant, [redacted]. [redacted] explained Epstein had purchased her from her family in Yugoslavia. Epstein bragged he brought her into the United States to be his Yugoslavian sex slave. [redacted] advised he was naked in the bedroom, she entered and removed her clothing. [redacted] entered the room from the steam room area already naked. He instructed [redacted] to perform oral sex on
+
+
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident ReportPage: 41
+Program: CMS301Lase No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+[REDACTED] refused to perform that act. Epstein offered her an additional \$200.00 for her to perform oral sex on [REDACTED] for five minutes. [REDACTED] agreed to perform the oral sex for the additional \$200.00. [REDACTED] explained that Epstein would masturbate while he watched them perform sexual acts.
+
+Things continued to escalate by purchasing sex toys. [REDACTED] stated she had massagers, vibrators and strap on rubber penises used on her. Each time something new was introduced additional monies were produced and offered for [REDACTED] to allow the acts to happen. [REDACTED] was adamant that she performs all these acts but there was an understanding with Epstein that no vaginal penetration would occur with his penis. [REDACTED] explained that Epstein's penis was deformed. [REDACTED] explained that his penis was oval shaped. She claimed when Epstein's penis was erect, it was thick toward the bottom but was thin and small toward the head portion. She called it egg-shaped.
+
+[REDACTED] continued that the sexual encounters with [REDACTED], Epstein and her became a ritual. [REDACTED] would arrive at the house and walk herself upstairs, where [REDACTED] and Epstein were waiting. [REDACTED] would remove her clothing and join them on the bed. [REDACTED] explained [REDACTED] and she would begin by kissing and touching each other. [REDACTED] explained sex toys were brought into the bed by either Epstein or [REDACTED] and they would begin using the toys on each other. Epstein would perform oral sex on either person depending who was on top during the intercourse. [REDACTED] explanation revealed they were in a missionary position.
+
+[REDACTED] advised one day, [REDACTED] was unable to state and exact date when this incident occurred), she came to the house after Sara had informed her that Epstein had arrived. She arrived at the house and went upstairs to the [REDACTED] bedroom. [REDACTED] advised she immediately removed her clothing, as [REDACTED] and Epstein were already naked in the bedroom. [REDACTED] explained that [REDACTED] and she had a sexual encounter to include kissing, touching and oral sex. [REDACTED] remembered that she climaxed and was removing her self from the massage table. [REDACTED] asked for a sheet of paper and drew the massage table in the [REDACTED] bathroom and where Epstein, [REDACTED] and she were. Epstein turned [REDACTED] on to her stomach on the massage bed and inserted his penis into her vagina. [REDACTED] stated Epstein began to pump his penis in her vagina. [REDACTED] became upset over this. She said her head was being held against the bed forcibly, as he continued to pump inside her. She screamed no, and Epstein stopped. She told him that she did not want to have his penis inside of her. Epstein apologized for his actions and subsequently paid her a thousand dollars for that visit. Additionally, shortly thereafter, Epstein gave [REDACTED] a 2005 Doge Neon, blue in color for her personal use.
+
+[REDACTED] advised there were times that she was so sore when she left Epstein's house. [REDACTED] advised she was ripped, torn, in her vagina area. [REDACTED] advised she had difficulty walking to the car after leaving the house because she was so sore. [REDACTED] advised that other
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 42
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Case No. . . : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+than that one time, when Epstein inserted his penis inside her vagina,
+there was no other penile intercourse.
+
+[REDACTED] provided names of girls that she knew of that have gone to
+Epstein's house. [REDACTED] provided the name of [REDACTED] and feels she
+still may be going to the house to massage Epstein. According to
+[REDACTED], [REDACTED] is still sucking his dick."
+
+When asked if she had been recently contacted by anyone of the house,
+[REDACTED] advised she received an email from Sara, from
+KellenS@earthlink.net, which is her email account. The email was just
+a hello, how are you doing type of email. There had been no other
+contact from the house. The interview was concluded and [REDACTED] left the
+area. The tapes and drawing were submitted into evidence.
+
+Investigation continues...
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 12 \*\*\*\*\*
+A Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 11/01/05
+Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 11/07/05
+
+On October 12, 2005, Det. Dawson and I traveled to the Orlando area
+and made telephone contact with [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] agreed to meet
+with us as we were in the Orlando area. [REDACTED] provided directions to
+her apartment. Det. Dawson and I met with [REDACTED] who stated, during a
+sworn taped statement that nothing happened between her and Epstein.
+[REDACTED] appeared nervous during the interview. I assured her that I
+had spoken with other people who advised differently. [REDACTED] stated
+she only went a couple of times and provided a massage to Epstein.
+She stated she was brought to the Epstein house in March of 2005.
+[REDACTED] brought her to work. [REDACTED] has no formal training in
+providing massages. [REDACTED] stated she provided a massage, fully
+clothed for \$200.00. As I sensed hesitancy in her answers, I asked
+[REDACTED] if she had been contacted by anyone from the house. [REDACTED]
+stated she was interviewed already by an investigator for Epstein. He
+met with her on October 8, 2005, at a Roadhouse in Orlando. He
+identified himself as Paul and inquired about the police investigation
+and left his telephone number 305-710-5165 for additional contact.
+[REDACTED] provided no additional information, as it appeared her
+responses were almost scripted. We left the area and returned to Palm
+Beach Police Department.
+
+Based on the information acquired during the interviews, a search
+warrant was prepared for entry at the Epstein home. On October 18,
+2005, I met with Judge Laura [REDACTED] who reviewed the warrant request.
+She found there was sufficient probable cause and signed the warrant
+request. On October 20, 2005, at approximately 9:36 am, members of
+the Palm Beach Police Investigations Unit executed the search warrant
+at 358 El Brillo in Palm Beach. Members of the Investigations Unit
+included Capt Gudger, Sgt Frick, Det. Dicks, Det. Dawson, Det.
+Melnichok, Det. [REDACTED], Det. Krauel, the crime scene unit and myself.
+
+# Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 43 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+rime: 15:01:37
+
+!ase No • 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+
+As we entered onto the property, we encountered the house manager, Janusz Banasiak who was in the guest portion of the house. The guesthouse section had open doors and no forced entry was made. I made contact with Banasiak, Date of Birth 04-07-1953, Fl DL B522-420-53-127-0, and informed him of the search warrant for the premises. The members of the Police Department entered the residence and announced we had a search warrant. A safety search was done and members exited the home. I read the search warrant to Banasiak as Mgr Parkinson videotaped the search warrant execution. Several interior decorators were located on the property. I spoke with Mark Zeff, of 515 W 20th Street in New York. Mr. Zeff stated he is the designer for Mr. Epstein's homes. He advised he was contacted in March of 2005 to do acomplete overhaul on the house. He advised he was on the phone with Mr. Epstein when officers announced the search warrant. Mr. Epstein was then made aware of the search warrant. Mr. Zeff advised, his contact with Epstein is strictly business and he has never witnessed Epstein with any girls except for his assistants, Sara or Nada.
+
+I then interviewed Daniel Estes, of 315 East 14th Street in New York. Mr. Estes stated he has worked for Zeff for seven years. He advised he personally worked on the New York and Palm Beach home for Mr. Epstein. He has previously met with Sara and Adrianna, Epstein's assistants in New York and in Florida. Estes stated they travel with Epstein everywhere he goes.
+
+i interviewed TIMM of 35 Riverside Jersey City, New Jersey. stated s e just arrived from Scotland and has worked with Zeff or on y one month. She stated she has never met Epstein and has not seen him. The interview was then concluded.
+
+I then spoke with Douglas Schoettle of 243 Riverside Dr in New York City. Schoettle stated he has been Epstein's Architect for seven years. He further stated he deals with Epstein's assistants and ill speaks with stein on the phone. Schoettle stated he mainly speaks with Sara , Epstein s main assistant, who travels with Epstein. Schoettle sae he only has contact with Epstein when his services are needed.
+
+At approximately 10:30 am, I was informed that the videotaping was concluded. I entered the residence and located two covert (hidden) cameras. The first camera was a covert wall clock in the garage area. I traced the wire behind the clock and removed the RCA wire and unplugged the camera. The other covert camera was located within a desk clock beside Epstein's desk. I traced the wire behind the clock and unplugged the RCA wire. I could not locate another camera. I then began with the search of the residence for the specified evidence.
+
+My search consisted of the second floor. Det. Krauel and I began in the bedroom area where several items were located. They were
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 44
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Case No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+marked to be retrieved by the evidence custodian. In the [REDACTED] desk with Epstein's notepads marked Jeffrey Epstein we located a high school transcript from [REDACTED] for [REDACTED]. Also in the room, was the dresser /armoire where we located a bottle of peach flavored Joy Jelly (Sexual Lubricant). Additionally, there were several photographs of young naked teenage girls within the closet, which was consistent with what the witnesses said. The massage table was also located within the [REDACTED] bedroom. Video tapes were located beside the television, which were also collected. An itemized list of the property and locations was prepared on the property receipts. At approximately 2:55 pm, the house was secured; the exit of the residence was videotaped. Upon our exit of the property, I encountered Atty. Guy Fronstein who advised he was representing Mr. Epstein. He provided a business card and provided his assistance with the investigation.
+
+Due to Hurricane Wilma, which struck South Florida causing massive power outages, the courthouse was closed due to the lack of power. I was previously told that the Chief Judge had extended the filing deadlines due to the hurricane and the Courthouse being closed. On October 27, and 28, 2005 the courthouse was closed and I could not file the search warrant and inventory at the clerk's office. On October 31, 2005, I responded to the courthouse and filed the paperwork along with an order to seal, signed by Judge [REDACTED], to deny any release of any paperwork on this case.
+
+INV CONTINUES..
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 13 \*\*\*\*\*
+Reported By: PARKINSON, GREGORY A. 10/20/05
+Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 11/07/05
+
+On October 20, 2005, at approximately 8:30 a.m., Thursday morning, I was advised by Captain Gudger that a search warrant would be executed and that I was to assemble the Crime Scene Investigative Team and stand by the south side of the building ready to go. I designated Evidence Specialist [REDACTED] to handle the inventory return, the documentation of the property receipts and the collection and bagging of the evidence at the scene. I further instructed CSI [REDACTED], ID # 8807, to accompany us and perform the role of photographing the scene and the items that may be taken into custody by the affiant, Detective [REDACTED] Recarey, ID # 7915.
+
+My responsibility was to go through from the reading of the warrant to the final exit from the residence and perform a video recording of the reading of the warrant, the initial walk through of the residence showing the current condition and then finally a walk through of the residence at the time of the police exit.
+
+We started out towards the residence, which was located at 358 El Brillo and arrived at approximately 9:33 a.m. The search was conducted, items were collected by Evidence Specialists [REDACTED],
+
+# Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 45 rime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) photographed by CSI =Mend then videotaped by myself. The search was concluded at appf5RWINtely 3:05 p.m. whereupon Detective Recarey and I were the last two officers in the house. Upon securing the residence we met with the gentleman who identified himself to Detective Recarey as the lawyer for the defendant and he was informed that the residence was secured and that copies of the inventory return had been left on the first floor table of the personal assistant's office.
+
+Detective Recarey and I returned to Police Headquarters and secured for the day.
+
+\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIVE # 14 \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Reported By: DAWSON, MICHAEL C. 11/07/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICK'S A. 11/07/05
+
+On October 20, 2005, I assisted Defective Recarey in the execution of a search warrant at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, 33480.
+
+Upon the announcement of the search warrant, immediate contact was made with three males who came out of the house or surrounding structures. Those ma es were identified as Janusz Banasiak, Daniel Estes, and Mark Zeff. As other members of the police department cleared the home, I kept watch over these three males. Once the house was cleared, those males were turned over to Detective Recarey.
+
+Detective Dicks and I were assigned to assist in the search of the main house, the cabana and the servant's quarters. We started in the garage. All areas of the garage were searched to include four vehicles. These vehicles were three black Mercedes Benz cars registered to Jeffrey stein. The fourth vehicle was aHarley Davidson motorcycle, in color, registered to Jeffrey Epstein. Nothing was recovered rom the garage.
+
+A towel closet and pantry located off the kitchen were searched and yielded negative results.
+
+The kitchen was searched and taken into evidence was aphone message book that was located near ahouse phone.
+
+North of the kitchen was an office room which contained acomputer. The room had acloset that contained alocked gun locker. The combination was entered by Banasiak in the presence of sgt. Frick and the safe was opened. Items were taken from the room. See the completed property receipt for a detailed list.
+
+A bathroom located on the first floor was searched and nothing waStaken.
+
+A closet located just west of the bathroom was searched. Two massage tables were located in thei Rget along with aphoto of a nude
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 46
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Lase No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+female from the waist up. See the property receipt for details.
+
+I searched two bedrooms and their adjoining bathrooms, which were located on the second floor on the East side of the house. In the Northeast bedroom closet I found adult sex toys called Twin Torpedoes. Soap made in the shape of a penis and vagina were also found in these upstair bedrooms. See the property receipt for details.
+
+I searched the pool cabana located on the South side of the pool. Photos were taken from the wall. See the property receipt for details.
+
+I assisted in the search of Banasiak's living quarters. Numerous CD s along with a message book was seized. See the property receipt for details.
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 15 \*\*\*\*\*
+4 Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 11/08/05
+Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 11/08/05
+
+On November 1, 2005, I was contacted by Atty. Gus Fronstin, who advised he was willing to assist with the investigation. Atty. Fronstin advised he would try to have his client, Jeffrey Epstein available to be interviewed. I explained I would be interested in conducting an interview with his client as well as other employees that are employed within the house. Atty. Fronstin advised he would return my call once he received confirmation on the interviews.
+
+On November 6, 2005, I attempted contact with [REDACTED] at her residence. I left a business card for her to return my call. Upon returning to the police department, I had received a telephone call from [REDACTED]. I returned her call at [REDACTED] and spoke with [REDACTED]. She made arrangements to respond to the station to provide an interview. At approximately 3:30 pm, she arrived at the Palm Beach Police Station with her boyfriend. Her boyfriend was allowed to sit in the lobby area while Ms. [REDACTED] was interviewed.
+
+I took Ms. [REDACTED] to the Detective Bureau Interview room. I closed the door for privacy and explained to her that I appreciated her coming to the police station for the interview. During the sworn taped statement, she advised she was at Jeffrey Epstein's house one time. Approximately two months ago, she was approached by a girl, [REDACTED], who was dating her roommate, to make some quick money. [REDACTED] advised she was in need to make some quick cash to make the rent that month. She agreed to go to the house. She had been told by [REDACTED] that the massage would have to be done in her underwear. She advised [REDACTED] drove with her and brought her into the house. They walked into the kitchen area and took the stairs upstairs. [REDACTED] further stated she was brought into a [REDACTED] bedroom area. She advised she recalled seeing portraits of naked women throughout the room. A massage table was already out near the sauna/shower area in the [REDACTED] bedroom. Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel and
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 47
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Lase No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+introduced himself as Jeff. [redacted] advised she recalled she and [redacted] removed their clothing down to their panties, Epstein lay on his stomach area and they provided a massage on his legs and feet area. I asked [redacted] if she had any formal massage training and she replied no. [redacted] advised she was topless and the panties she wore were the boy shorts lace panties. She and [redacted] continued the massage until the last ten minutes of the massage, Epstein, told [redacted] to leave the room so that [redacted] could finish the massage.
+
+[redacted] got dressed and Epstein turned over onto his back. Epstein then removed the towel, which had been around his waist. Epstein laid there naked and requested that [redacted] rub his chest area. [redacted] stated as she did this, Epstein, began masturbating as she rubbed his chest. [redacted] stated he pulled down her boy short panties and he produced a large [redacted] vibrator with a large head. She stated it was within a drawer in his [redacted] bathroom. He rubbed the vibrator on her vagina area. [redacted] advised he never penetrated her vagina with the vibrator.
+
+He continued to rub her vagina with the vibrator as he continued to masturbate. [redacted] stated she was very uncomfortable during the incident but knew it was almost over. Epstein climaxed and started to remove himself from the table. He wiped himself with the towel he had on previously and went into the shower area. [redacted] got dressed and met with [redacted] in the kitchen area. Epstein came into the kitchen and provided [redacted] \$200.00 for bringing [redacted] and paid \$200.00 to [redacted] for providing the massage. [redacted] was told to leave her telephone number with Sarah, his assistant for future contact. [redacted] provided her cellular telephone number for future contact. [redacted] was asked if she was recently contacted about this investigation by anyone from the Epstein organization. She replied she was called but it was for work. She stated she was called by Sarah for her to return to work for Epstein. [redacted] stated work is the term used by Sarah to provide the massage in underwear. [redacted] advised she declined, as she was not comfortable in providing that type of work. The interview was concluded and the videotape was placed into evidence.
+
+Investigation Continues..
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 16 \*\*\*\*\*
+Reported By: RECAREY, [redacted] 11/10/05
+Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 11/10/05
+
+On November 7, 2005, I made telephone contact with [redacted] who advised she would be able to meet with me at her home. Det. [redacted] and I traveled to her home in [redacted] and made contact with [redacted]. During a sworn taped statement, [redacted] stated she met Jeffrey Epstein through [redacted]. [redacted] would approach females who wished to work for him. [redacted] stated she was asked to work for him but declined. [redacted] explained that work means give massages. She was asked about any formal training in providing massages to which she said no. [redacted] said she accompanied [redacted] and other females
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 48
+Program: CMS301L
+
+'ase No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+who were taken to Epstein's house to provide massages. [REDACTED]
+further stated she had been to the house approximately 4 or 5 times in
+the past year. She accompanied [REDACTED] with [REDACTED]
+[REDACTED] the 14-year-old victim, and [REDACTED].
+Each time the girls were taken over, they were previously told they
+would have to provide a massage, possibly naked. It was also told that
+should Epstein require them to do anything extra and they were not
+comfortable just to tell him and he would stop. [REDACTED] stated
+[REDACTED] received \$200.00 for each girl she brought over to massage
+Jeffrey Epstein. When I asked which girl appeared to be the youngest,
+she replied, the victim, as she stated she was fifteen years old at
+the most; she looked really young. [REDACTED] further stated each time
+she went to the house, she sat in the kitchen and waited with [REDACTED]
+until the massage was over. She further stated that the [REDACTED] would
+make lunch or a snack for them as they waited. I asked her if there
+was anything that caught her attention within the home. [REDACTED]
+stated there were a lot of naked girls in photographs throughout the
+house. The interview was concluded and the tape was turned into
+evidence.
+
+Investigation Continues..
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 17 \*\*\*\*\*
+Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 11/10/05
+Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 11/10/05
+
+Det. Dawson and I attempted contact with [REDACTED] in [REDACTED]
+[REDACTED] I left my business card at her front door. Ms [REDACTED]
+returned my call and arranged a meeting with me at the Palm Beach
+Police Department for November 8, 2005. At approximately 2:00pm,
+[REDACTED] arrived at the Palm Beach Police Department. She was brought
+into the interview room and the door was closed for privacy. She was
+told that I appreciated her coming to the police station for
+questioning regarding an on going investigation. She was told that I
+was investigating a crime involving Jeffrey Epstein and knew, based on
+the investigation, that she had encounters with him in the past.
+During a sworn taped statement, [REDACTED] stated she had met Epstein
+approximately two years ago. She was first introduced to Epstein by
+[REDACTED] approached her about working for Epstein and
+providing a massage to him for \$200.00. The arrangements were made
+and as [REDACTED] could not take her the day the arrangements were made,
+[REDACTED] took [REDACTED] also attended [REDACTED]
+[REDACTED] and was familiar with Epstein.
+
+[REDACTED] recalled she was brought there and entered through the back
+kitchen door. She had met with an assistant Sarah and another
+assistant Adrianna. Sarah brought her upstairs as she observed
+several photographs of naked females throughout the house. [REDACTED]
+stated Epstein came in the room, wearing only a towel, and laid on the
+table. [REDACTED] stated he picked out the oils he wanted her to use and
+requested she remove her clothing to provide the massage. [REDACTED]
+stated that on the first massage she provided she did not remove her
+
+Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Time: 15:01:37 Page: 49 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) clothing. stated she had returned several times after that. Each time she returned more things happened. Ilak stated that the same thing would happen. Epstein would walk into the bedroom/bathroom area wearing only a towel. He would ate as she provided a massage. S stated she was unsure if he climaxed as he masturbated under the towel. Additionally she never looked blow his waist. She claimed that Epstein would convince her to remove her clothes. She eventually removed her clothes and stayed in her thong panties. On occasion Epstein would use amassager/vibrator, which she described as MN in color with a large head, on her. Every time she provided a massage he would masturbate. padded she has no formal training in providing a massage. stated she brought two females during her visits to rovide massages. e stated she brou ht.a girl named Ailltand from stated she received \$200.00 for each girl she brought. Add:RMS./it was given \$200.00 for taking her in the very beginning. The interview was concluded and the tape was placed into evidence.
+
+Investigation continues...
+
+\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\* \*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIVE # 18 \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\* , Reported By: RECAREY, imii 11/13/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, A. 11/14/05
+
+On November 8, 2005, I made telephone contact withal W/F, at her residence. IIIIIIIresponded to the police station or an reference an ongoing investigation. At approximately 2:30 pm, she arrived at the Palm Beach Police Station and was brought into the interview room for the interview. The door was closed for privacy and she was told that I appreciated her cooperation in this case. During a sworn taped statement,illillistated she had met Jeffrey Epstein approximate) one year ago. She was approached by a subject known to her as . IMOMOhad asked her if she wanted to make money providing massages to Epstein. -had heard that several girls from qiiiIlligis were doing this and making money. She agreed and was taken to the house bye ea had introduced her to Sarah and Epstein and brought her upstairs to a SPEbedroom and IIIIII bathroom where a massage table was prepared proper oils ew re— taken out. cleft the room and waited downstairs for aistated Epstein entered the room wearing a towel and she provided a massage wearing only her thong panties. -advised Epstein had masturbated every time she provided a massage. She stated Epstein continued to masturbate until he climaxed; once that occurred the massage was over. She felt the whole situation was weird but she advised she was paid \$200.00 for providing the massage. she also state" received \$200.00 for bringilial) to Epstein.
+
+IIIIINIlstated she had gone a total of 15 times to his residence to provide a massage and things had escalated from just providing a
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 50
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Lase No. : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+
+massage. Epstein began touching her on her buttocks and grabbed her closer to him as he masturbated. Epstein also grabbed her breasts and fondled her breast with his hands as she provided the massage. [REDACTED] stated on one occasion, he offered extra monies to have vaginal intercourse. She stated this all occurred on the massage table.
+
+[REDACTED] stated Epstein penetrated her vagina with his penis and began having intercourse with her until he reached the point of climax. Epstein removed his penis from her vagina and climaxed onto the massage table. [REDACTED] received \$350.00 for her massage. I asked her if she had any formal training in providing massages, [REDACTED] stated she did not.
+
+[REDACTED] continued to state on one other occasion, Epstein introduced his assistant, Nada, into the massage. Nada was brought into room with [REDACTED] to provide a massage. Epstein had them kiss and fondle each other around the breasts and buttocks as they provided a massage to Epstein. Epstein, watched and masturbated as this occurred. On other occasions, Epstein introduced the large [REDACTED] vibrator/massager during the massage. Epstein stroked the vibrator/massager on [REDACTED] vagina as she provided the massage.
+
+[REDACTED] stated the last time she spoke with anyone at the house, was with Sarah during the weekend of October 2 or 3, 2005. [REDACTED] stated she had brought two people to the Epstein house. She provided the names of [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] (unknown last name). It should noted, [REDACTED] had been previously identified as [REDACTED] and had been previously interviewed. The interview was concluded and the videotape was placed into evidence via the locker system.
+
+On November 9, 2005, Sgt Frick and I traveled to 6791 Fairway Lakes Drive in Boynton Beach, Florida in hopes to interview Juan Alessi, the former houseman of Epstein's home. As no one was home, a business card was left for him to return my call. We then traveled to 11349 SW 86th Lane in Miami in hopes to interview Alfredo Rodriguez, a former house man of Epstein. We did not locate them at home. I left a business card for him to return my call.
+
+We then traveled to [REDACTED] and met with [REDACTED] of Students, Mr. [REDACTED]. We requested to speak with [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] was re interviewed, as she still was in possession of the rental car that Epstein had acquired for her. [REDACTED] stated that Sarah, Epstein's assistant, had called her on her cellular telephone and informed her that rental was extended for her. Sarah stated she had paid an additional \$625.00 for her to keep the rental an extra month. [REDACTED] was asked if she had any additional contact with either Epstein or anyone from his organization. [REDACTED] stated she did not, other than the telephone call informing her that she could keep the car for an extra month. [REDACTED] did not provide any additional information.
+
+On November 10, 2005, at approximately 9:47 am, Alfredo Rodriguez had telephoned reference my business card found on his door. Rodriguez stated he had worked with Epstein for approximately six months after
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 51
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Case No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+the previous houseman left. Rodriguez stated that it was his responsibility to keep the identity of the masseuses private. Mr. Epstein had a massage in the morning and one in the afternoon. Mr. Rodriguez stated he would rather speak about this in private. He advised he would come to the police station to speak with me. Rodriguez stated he would return my call on Monday, November 14, 2005.
+
+I then made telephone contact with Juan Alessi. He advised he found my card on his door and wanted to know what I needed to speak with him about. I explained to Alessi that I was conducting an investigation on his former employer, Mr. Epstein. Alessi stated he would return my call shortly as he was in the middle of a project at his home. I received a telephone call from Attorney Donald Morrell from 686-2700. Mr. Morrell stated he represented Mr. Alessi and did not want me speaking with his client. I then made telephone contact with the State Attorney's Office and confirmed that subpoenas would be issued to the former employees to assist in the investigation.
+
+I then made telephone contact with Attorney Guy Fronstin, attorney for Mr. Epstein. I explained to Mr. Fronstin that I would like to speak with Mr. Epstein. He stated Mr. Epstein is not in residence in Florida at this time and would check with him to ascertain if he could be here by Wednesday November 16, 2005 for an interview. Mr. Fronstin stated he would return my call should Mr. Epstein decide to come in to the police station for an interview.
+
+Investigation continues.
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 19 \*\*\*\*\*
+Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 11/15/05
+Entered By: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 11/16/05
+
+On November 14, 2005, Det. [REDACTED] and I traveled to [REDACTED] in [REDACTED] and spoke with [REDACTED]. She was told of the ongoing investigation involving Epstein. [REDACTED] advised she had gone to the house on several occasions. During a sworn taped statement, she advised she started going to the house approximately one year ago and was brought by [REDACTED] (Unknown last name). [REDACTED] stated [REDACTED] brought her into the house and she was introduced to a girl named Sarah. Once she met her, Sarah brought her upstairs into a [REDACTED] bedroom bathroom. [REDACTED] stated she met Jeffrey in the bathroom. He lay on the table and picked the massage oils. She provided the massage, as he lay naked on the massage bed. She stated she rubbed his calves and back area. Upon the end of the massage, Epstein removed himself from the massage table and paid her \$300.00 for the massage.
+
+[REDACTED] stated she had only been at the house approximately five or six times. [REDACTED] said each time she went to the house she was notified by Sarah, Epstein's assistant, that Epstein was in town and would like her to work. [REDACTED] stated she returned to the house and was again led upstairs by Sarah. She provided the massage, clothed.
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 52
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Lase No. : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+
+advised it wasn't really weird until later on. [REDACTED] was asked if she ever removed her clothing to provide a massage. [REDACTED] stated it was not until the third time she went that she removed her clothing. [REDACTED] stated she was notified by Sarah that Epstein wanted her to come to work. She arrived at the house and was led upstairs by Sarah. She started providing the massage when Epstein asked her to remove her clothing. [REDACTED] removed her pants, shirt and bra. She stayed in her thong panties and continued rubbing Epstein. Epstein turned over onto his back and she rubbed his chest area. [REDACTED] stated she knew he was masturbating himself as she providing the massage. [REDACTED] stated she believed he climaxed based on his breathing. She did not want to view either the climax or the fact that he was masturbating. [REDACTED] stated once the breathing relaxed he got up and told her to get dressed. She was paid \$300.00 for her services.
+
+[REDACTED] stated on the last time she went to provide a massage, she was notified by Sarah to come to the house and work. [REDACTED] stated she was now dating her current boyfriend and did not feel comfortable going. She recalled it was approximately January 2005. She said she went, already thinking that this would be the last time. She went upstairs and went into the [REDACTED] bathroom. She met with Epstein, who was wearing only a towel as he entered the room to lie on the table. [REDACTED] stated Epstein caught her looking at the clock on several occasions. Epstein asked her if she was in a hurry. [REDACTED] stated her boyfriend was in the car waiting for her. [REDACTED] further stated that Epstein got upset, as she wasn't enjoying the massage. She told him that she didn't want to continue and she would not be back. Epstein told her to leave as she was ruining his massage. I asked her if she had any contact with Epstein's organization, she stated she received \$200.00 from Western Union in [REDACTED] Palm Beach and Okeechobee Blvd as a Christmas gift. [REDACTED] advised she had no formal training in provide any massages. [REDACTED] also stated she was sixteen years old when she first went to Epstein's house.
+
+At approximately 4:22 pm, I made telephone contact with [REDACTED] at [REDACTED]. She agreed to meet with me at a public place. I suggested she come to the police station for an interview. [REDACTED] did not want to meet at the police station. I recommended we meet at the Palm Beach Gardens Mall in the food court area. She agreed and an appointment was made for November 15, 2005 at 5:00 pm at the food court.
+
+Investigations Continue.
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 20 \*\*\*\*\*
+
+Reported By: [REDACTED] R.
+Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A.
+
+11/16/05
+11/17/05
+
+On 10/20/2005, I assisted executing a search warrant at 358 El Brillo Way in the Town of Palm Beach, Palm Beach County Florida under the direction of affiant Detective Joe Recarey.
+
+Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 53 rime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CM83011,
+
+ease No • 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+
+Detective Melnichok and I searched the antry room that is west next to the kitchen. This room had all cabinets with a dark grey and black counter top. We did not in anything in this room.
+
+We searched the yellow and blue room that is west next to the pantry room. This room had a very large statue of man with a bow. Taken into evidence from this room were nine photographs in frames of various women.
+
+We searched the main entrance foyer that is to the north of the yellow and blue room. This room contained two bamboo chairs and ottomans with cushions. It also contained a round table with numerous books.
+
+We searched another blue room that is west of the foyer. This room had a stereo system and book shelves that were from the floor to the ceiling. Taken into evidence from this room were eight photographs in frames of various women and/or Epstein, the owner of the residence.
+
+we searched the room to the west of the blue room that has sliding doors that lead out to the pool. In this room in a dresser were two DVD's and two VCR tapes. These items were taken into evidence.
+
+we searched a 2004 black Chevy Suburban bearing Florida tag X99-EGL, registered to Jeffrey Epstein DOB 01/20/53, which was located on the east side of the driveway facing south. I found a Thrifty rental agreement between the passenger seat and the middle console. The name on the rental agreement was from 622 Holly Drive Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410. The phone number on the rental agreement was (561) 714-0546. The vehicle rented was a 2005 Chrysler Sebring bearing Florida tag W99-FDN. The vehicle was rented on 9/25/05 at 17:58 hours and was returned on 9/26/05 at 16:52 hours. The last four numbers of the credit card used are 9821. Detective Melnichok found a piece of paper in the middle console that said I used the cash in here to fill up the tank and was signed by Johanna.
+
+I searched the 2005 black Cadillac Escalade ESV bearing Florida tag Q29-9GT, registered to Jeffrey Epstein dob 01/20/53, which was located on the west side of the driveway facing south. I did not find anything in this vehicle.
+
+All of the items that were taken into evidence were photographed in the place they were located and then turned over to crime scene.
+
+\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* # 21 \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Reported By: RECAREY, 11/17/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 11/17/05
+
+### ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 54 ime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+
+On November 15, 2005, Det. and I traveled to with SIOIS a seventeen-year old juvenile who was not in school this day due to a cold from which she was suffering. INSIMMIMPwas told that I needed to speak with her in reference to an ongoing investigation involving a subject she would know as Jeffrey Epstein. Prior to speaking with her, I explained that because of the fact that she is a minor, I needed to speak with her parents prior to speaking with her. She telephoned her father, Mr. on his cell phone and explained to him that Det, and I were there to speak with her. I spoke with Mr.IMIIIIIPPo lephone and informed him I needed to speak with his daughter in reference to an ongoing investigation. Mr.4MOMINIM advised he had no problem with us speaking with his daughter.
+
+During asworn taped statement,a stated she met Jeffrey Epstein over a year ago. She was sixteen years of age and was approached byawho informed her that she could make monies providing a massage to Epstein for \$200.00. Thad informed her that she would have to provide this massage topless. IMIllbmade the arrangements with Epstein and his assistants and took to the house. IMMINIK stated and she entered through adoor that led into akitchen. stook her upstairs, to a bedroom and bathroom. She recalled the bathroom had a la sauna and matchin shower. Epstein entered into the room wearing only atowel. andelleremoved their clothing remaining only in thong underwear. She further stated that Epstein lay on his chest on the table. Epstein selected which oils to use for the massage. Botharanda provided the massage on his legs, back and feet. Forty minutes into the massage, Epstein turned over onto his back and requested we wait downstairs in the kitchen area fore Epstein instructedato finish the massage. As er got dressed, starting rubbing his chest. swims left the room, and Epstein began masturbating himself as® rubbed Epstein schest. ImOMMMOstated he continued masturbating until he climaxed on the towel he was wearing. When asked if he had removed the towel she stated he turned the towel around so that the opening would allow him to expose himself. After he cleaned himself off with the towel, he instructed the massage was done and to get dressed and met with him downstairs. er got dressed and met with Epstein in the kitchen area. She was paid \$200.00 dollars for providing the massage. Stated she was aware that Si also received monies for the same thing.
+
+The second time she went to the house she was again approached by WM, masked if she wanted to return to the house to provide another massage; agreed and the arrangements were made by aor her to return to the house. stated drove her to the house and knocked on the same door that leads to the kitchen area. They were allowed entr o the house by one of the staff members. dIMININIed her upstairs to the bedroom and
+
+ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 55
+ime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+██████████ bathroom area. ██████████ left ██████████ this time to do the massage alone. Epstein entered the room again wearing only a towel. ██████████ began removing her clothing as she did the last time she was at the house. Epstein instructed her to get naked. He lay on the table on his stomach as ██████████ began massaging his legs and back.
+
+As ██████████ finished with Epstein's back and legs, Epstein then turned over onto his back. ██████████ started to rub his chest and he began masturbating himself. As ██████████ rubbed his chest, Epstein leaned over and produced a massager/vibrator. He turned it on and began rubbing ██████████ vagina and masturbating himself at the same time. ██████████ stated she continued to rub his chest as this was occurring. She described the vibrator/massager as large, grey with a large head. Epstein rubbed her vagina for approximately two to three minutes with the massager/vibrator. He then removed the vibrator from her vaginal area and concentrated on masturbating himself. ██████████ stated he climaxed onto the towel again and informed her that the massage was done. ██████████ got dressed and met with ██████████ who was waiting in the kitchen area. She received \$200.00 for the massage. ██████████ said she never returned to the house and had no desire to return to the house. ██████████ was asked if she received any formal massage training. She advised she had no formal training. ██████████ was asked if Epstein knew her real age. ██████████ stated he knew as he asked her questions about herself and high school. He was aware she attended and is still attending ██████████ ██████████.
+
+The interview was concluded. I suggested ██████████ inform her parents of what occurred at the Epstein house. ██████████ stated she would tell her father as he was unaware this had occurred. I left my business card for any questions they may have. We left the area and returned to the police station. The tape was placed into evidence.
+
+Investigation Continues.
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 22 \*\*\*\*\*
+Reported By: RECAREY, ██████████ 11/17/05
+Entered By: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 11/17/05
+
+On November 15, 2005, Officer Munyan and I responded to the Palm Beach Gardens Mall food court section to meet with ██████████. At approximately 5:10 p.m., ██████████ arrived and met with us at the food court. ██████████ provided a sworn taped statement in which she stated she had been at the Epstein house over fifty times. She began going to Epstein's house when she turned eighteen years old. ██████████ was asked if she knew of the on-going investigation. ██████████ stated she was aware there was an investigation as she had been told by other girls that were interviewed. Additionally, she has had several telephone conversations with Epstein's assistants as to what had been going on during the investigation.
+
+I asked ██████████ how she was introduced to Epstein. ██████████ stated she did not want to disclose who brought her to the house but she would
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 56
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Lase No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+respond to any other questions. When I asked her what happened at the house, [REDACTED] stated everything happened. It all began with the massages. Each time she went more things happened. She would massage Epstein and he would masturbate and climax. She stated things escalated from there. She provided oral sex on Epstein and he provided oral sex on her. She stated he would also use a massager/vibrator on her vagina to stimulate her as she massaged him. He introduced his assistant Nadia or Nada to have vaginal intercourse with [REDACTED]. She stated Nada or Nadia would utilize a strap-on (synthetic penis) to have intercourse with her. She was told to masturbate herself as Epstein and Nada had sexual intercourse. All this was done at Epstein's direction.
+
+[REDACTED] could not provide exact dates as she had been to the house so many times. [REDACTED] stated Epstein inserted his fingers in her vagina to stimulate her as she massaged him. When I asked her if there had been any vaginal intercourse with Epstein, she stated she did not have sex with him. She did admit having sex with Nada, his assistant. [REDACTED] stated not every time she went involved sexual favors. Sometimes she would just talk with him and get paid. I asked her how much she was paid each time she went to Epstein's residence. [REDACTED] stated she got paid \$300.00 every time she went to the house. She was told to bring other girls to him to provide massages. [REDACTED] declined stating that she does what she does and did not want to introduce anyone else to do what she does. [REDACTED] stated she had never received any formal training in providing massages.
+
+I showed [REDACTED] a photo line up in [REDACTED] was placed in position six. She reviewed the six photographs and immediately identified [REDACTED] as the person with whom she had intercourse. Additionally, it was the same person she watched have intercourse with Epstein. She signed the photo line-up under [REDACTED] [REDACTED]'s photo as the person she identified. We then left the mall and returned to the police station. The photo line up and tape were placed in to evidence.
+
+Investigation Continues...
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 23 \*\*\*\*\*
+Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 11/29/05
+Entered By: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/01/05
+
+On November 17, 2005, I received a phone message from Atty. Guy Fronstin who advised to call his cellular phone reference his client Jeffrey Epstein. I telephoned his cell phone and left a message for him to return my call. I did not receive a call back on Thursday, November 17, 2005. On Friday, November 18 2005, I retrieved another voice mail from my work phone from Mr. Fronstin advising he would not produce his client Jeffrey Epstein for any statement. Fronstin stated he had spoken with ASA Lana Belohlavek and expressed Mr. Epstein has a passion for massages. I called ASA Lana Belohlavek and confirmed that
+
+### )ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT rime: 15:01:37 Incident Report
+
+Page: 57 Program: CMS301L
+
+:nee No 1-05-000368 (Continued) Fronstin had telephoned her reference this case. Although nothing was discussed, Mr. Fronstin did advise her that Epstein is very passionate about massages.
+
+I also spoke with ASA Daliah Weiss reference the previous employees, Juan and Maria Alessi. She advised that they had been served through a subpoena process server. They were both scheduled to appear on Monday November 21, 2005 at 12:00 p.m.
+
+On November 21, 2005, I met with ASA Weiss, Atty. Donnie Murrell and Juan and Maria Alessi at the State Attorney Office. ASA Weiss had requested a court reporter to be present to take the statement of the Alessi s. I spoke with Maria Alessi, in the presence of her attorney, Donnie Murrell. She advised she had worked for Epstein for eight years, from the period of 1994 through 2002. She advised she had never had any direct conversations with him. She stated it was her husband who spoke directly with Epstein. Her work consisted of doing house cleaning, shopping and other preparations when Epstein would arrive in town. Alessi stated the preparations consisted of preparing the house and bathrooms for his arrival. She advised she did view several masseuses that arrived at the house. She advised that two or three girls would come during a day and provide the massages. The girls that arrived looked young in age. Mrs. Alessi did not know any of the girls personally and were always different. She was told that when Epstein was in residence he did not want to encounter the Alessis during his stay in Palm Beach.
+
+I then spoke with Mr. Alessi in the presence of his attorney, Donnie Murrell. Mr. Alessi stated that he was employed for eleven years with mr. Epstein. He originally was hired as apart time employee and then moved up into a full time position. His duties included everything. Alessi stated he was the house manager, driver and house maintenance person. It was his responsibility to prepare the house for Epstein s arrival. When asked about cooks or assistants, Alessi stated they traveled with Epstein on his private plane. He remembered dealing with his girlfriend, Ms. Maxwell originally and then dealt with Epstein directly.
+
+I asked Mr. Alessi about massages that occurred within the home. Mr. Alessi stated Mr. Epstein had up to three massages a day. Each masseuse that visited the house was different. Alessi stated that towards the end of his employment, the masseuses were younger and younger. When asked how young, Mr. Alessi stated they appeared to be sixteen or seventeen years of age at the most. The massages would occur in Epstein's bedroom or bathroom. There were times he recalled that he would set up the massage tables either in Epstein s bedroom or in his bathroom. I asked if there were things going on other than a massage. Alessi stated that there were times towards the end of his employment that he would have to wash off amassager/vibrator and a long rubber penis, which were in the sink after the massage. Additionally, he stated the bed would almost always have to be made after the massage. Alessi was never privy to what went on during the
+
+## Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 58 rime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+:ase No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) massages.
+
+He was asked if he remembered any names of the girls that massaged Epstein. He tried to remember and was unable to provide any exact names of any girls: Alessi was asked about any contact with anyone from the Epstein organization. Alessi said he did speak with Mr. Epstein shortly after my initial contact with him to find out what was going on. Alessi also stated that approximately on November 11, 2005, he was contacted by a private investigator from the Law Office of Roy Black. The investigator had called him to meet with him to ascertain what he was going to tell the police. Alessi stated they met at the Carrabba s Restaurant in Boynton Beach and discussed the same questions I was asking him. I informed Mr. Alessi and Mr. Morrell that as this is an ongoing investigation and anything we discuss should be confidential. They both acknowledged the fact that the information would be kept confidential. It should be noted that a court reporter was present during the interviews and would be providing a copy of the statements to me when they become available.
+
+On November 21, 2005, I received a voice mail from Mr. Fronstin who advised he would not be making Mr. Epstein available for any statements. He did have some words that he wanted to relay on behalf of Mr. Epstein. I telephoned his office and left a message for him to return my call.
+
+On November 29, 2005, I received a call back from Mr. Fronstin who left a voice mail after hours on November 28, 2005, advising he would return my call during normal business hours to speak with me reference the case on November 29, 2005.
+
+\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIVE \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Reported By: RECAREY, 11/29/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/01/05
+
+On November 29, 2005, at approximately 2:30 p.m. I received a telephone call on the department issued cell phone. Mr. Fronstin stated he was calling to relay information that Mr. Epstein wished he could relay. Mr. Fronstin stated that he would not allow Mr. Epstein to speak with me at this time. He further stated that Mr. Epstein is very passionate about massages. He continued that Mr. Epstein had allegedly donated over \$100,000 to the Ballet of Florida for massages. The massages are therapeutic and spiritually sound for him that is why he has had many massages. Mr. Fronstin stated he appreciated the way the investigation has not been leaked out into the media. I explained to Mr. Fronstin that it is as important to protect the innocent if the allegations are not substantiated. Mr. Fronstin was told of the allegations that the private investigators assigned to the case have been portraying themselves as police officers. Additionally, I explained that my cell phone had been called by the private investigators. Mr. Fronstin advised he was not aware of that and advised they were under the direction of Attorney Roy Black in
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 59
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Lase No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+Miami. Mr. Fronstin further stated Epstein had originally called Mr. Dershorwitz in Boston, who recommended Roy Black in Miami, who asked Mr. Fronstin to assist. I informed him that if and when any charges would be presented I would notify him. The call was then terminated.
+
+Investigation continues.
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 25 \*\*\*\*\*
+JA Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 12/15/05
+Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/16/05
+
+A review of the telephone message books, which were obtained during the search warrant, was conducted in which various messages from different dates were made to Jeffrey Epstein. The telephone message books have a duplicate copy (Carbon Copy) which, once a phone message is written into the book, the top copy is then torn on the perforated edge and the carbon copy is left in the book. First names of girls, dates and telephone numbers were on the copy of the messages. I recognized various numbers and names of girls that had already been interviewed. The body of the messages was time of the day that they called for confirmation of "work." Other names and telephone numbers were located in which the body of the messages were, "I have girls for him" or "I have 2 girls for him." These messages were taken by Sarah for Jeffrey Epstein. Based on the context of the body of the messages, I requested subpoenas for subscriber information on the telephone numbers and the time frame involved. Copies of the messages were made for evidentiary purposes.
+
+I obtained [REDACTED] yearbooks for 2005, 2004 and 2003. I first reviewed the 2005 yearbook and located most of the girls I had spoken with. Additionally, I located [REDACTED]. Based on the corrected name spelling, I was able to locate her to her residence in [REDACTED]. On December 8, 2005, Det. Caristo and I responded to [REDACTED] in [REDACTED]. I located [REDACTED] at her home. She advised she is attending [REDACTED] and is participating in the early release program so she can maintain her part time job. As she is still a minor, I left my business card to have her mother return my call to request an interview with her daughter. We then left the area.
+
+I also had previously researched the telephone number for [REDACTED] and telephone number [REDACTED]. A subpoena had been issued for the information on [REDACTED]. The telephone number was registered to [REDACTED] of [REDACTED]. A query of [REDACTED] revealed that she is the daughter of [REDACTED] and is currently residing at [REDACTED]. Det. Caristo and I attempted contact with [REDACTED] with negative results. I left my business card on her front door requesting she return my call. We then responded to [REDACTED]. I also attempted contact with Mr. [REDACTED] with negative results. I left my business card for him to return my call.
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 60
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Case No. . . : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+
+On December 9, 2005, I received a telephone call from [REDACTED] mother, who was made aware of the on going investigation in Palm Beach. [REDACTED] advised she was told of everything that occurred at Epstein's house involving Epstein and his staff. She advised she would allow me to question her daughter about what occurred and would cooperate with the investigation. [REDACTED] provided me with [REDACTED] cellular telephone number to schedule an appointment for an official interview. I telephoned her cellular telephone and made a tentative appointment for Monday, December 12, 2005.
+
+I then received a telephone call from [REDACTED] father of [REDACTED] who stated he found the business card on his door. I explained that I was conducting an investigation and needed to speak with [REDACTED] as she may have information that could assist in the investigation. Mr. [REDACTED] stated that his daughter no longer resides with him and has her own trailer in another trailer park. He advised he would tell her to call me.
+
+On December 12, 2005, due to a conflict with schedules, arrangements were made to meet with [REDACTED] on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 5:00 pm. On December 13, 2005, Det. Dawson and I traveled to [REDACTED] and met with [REDACTED]. During a sworn taped statement, [REDACTED] stated that when she was sixteen years old, she was taken to Epstein's house to provide a massage for money. [REDACTED] stated it was before Christmas last year when [REDACTED] approached her and asked if she needed to make money for Christmas; [REDACTED] stated she did and agreed to provide a massage for money. [REDACTED] made arrangements to take [REDACTED] to the house and drove [REDACTED] to the house to "work." [REDACTED] stated she could not remember the street name but would be able to drive to the street. They drove to the last house on the street and pulled in the last house on left side. They walked up the driveway and entered through a side gate which led to a kitchen door. They knocked on the door and were encountered by an employee who [REDACTED] described as a "Spanish looking lady." They informed her that they were expected. They were then encountered by a [REDACTED] female with long blond hair. [REDACTED] was unable to remember the name of the [REDACTED] female with blond hair but knew she was Epstein's assistant. She was led upstairs by the [REDACTED] female who explained that there would be lotions out already and Epstein would choose the lotion he wanted her to use. She was led through a spiral staircase which led to a [REDACTED] bedroom and bathroom. The massage table was already set up in the bathroom. [REDACTED] described the bathroom as a large spacious bathroom with a steam room and shower beside it with a sink to the right. [REDACTED] was introduced to Jeff who was on the phone when she entered. Jeff was wearing a [REDACTED] towel and lay on his stomach so that [REDACTED] may massage his feet and calves. [REDACTED] started the massage with the massage oil Jeff chose and rubbed his feet and calves. Jeff got off the phone and requested she massage his back as well. [REDACTED] began rubbing his back and got to the small of his back. During the rubbing of his back Jeff asked her to get comfortable. He
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 61
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Case No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+requested she remove her pants and shirt. [REDACTED] removed her shirt and pulled her pants off. [REDACTED] stayed in her bra and thong panties. As she finished the small of the back, Jeff then turned onto his back. He instructed she rub his chest and pinch his nipples. As she began to rub his chest, Jeff asked her questions about herself. [REDACTED] remembered telling him she attended [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] Jeff asked her if she was sexually active. Before [REDACTED] could answer, he also asked what sexual positions does she enjoy. [REDACTED] stated she was shy didn't like talking about those things. She continued rubbing his chest. Epstein reached up and unsnapped her bra from the front. [REDACTED] explained the bra she used had a front snapping device. Epstein rubbed her breasts and asked her if she like having her breasts rubbed. [REDACTED] said "no, I don't like that." Epstein then removed his towel and lay on the bed naked exposing his penis to [REDACTED]. He began touching his penis and masturbated as he touched her breasts. [REDACTED] explained Jeff then touched her vagina area by rubbing her vagina with his fingers on the outside of her thong panties. [REDACTED] tensed up and stated Jeff was aware that she was uncomfortable.
+
+[REDACTED] stated that Jeff told her, "Relax, I'm not going inside." She further explained Jeff commented to her how beautiful and sexy she was. Jeff then moved her thong panties to one side and now was stroking her clitoris. [REDACTED] said "Jeff commented how hard my clit was." He then inserted two fingers in her vagina and was stroking her within her vagina. She tried pulling back to pull out his fingers from within her vagina. Jeff removed his fingers from within her vagina and apologized for putting his fingers inside her. During this time he kept his hand on her vagina area rubbing her vagina. [REDACTED] stated he rubbed her real hard as he was masturbating. [REDACTED] said he climaxed onto the towel he had been previously wearing and got up from the table. Jeff told her there was \$200.00 dollars for her on the dresser within the [REDACTED] bathroom. Jeff also told her that there was an additional \$100.00 that was to be given to [REDACTED] for bringing her there to massage him. Jeff told her to leave her telephone number with his assistant as he wanted to see her again. Jeff stated his assistant would contact her to work again soon.
+
+I asked her if she ever received any formal massage training to which [REDACTED] stated she did not. [REDACTED] stated it was the only time she ever went to work for Jeff and knew what happened to her was wrong. She stated she no longer speaks to [REDACTED] because she was upset that [REDACTED] took her there. She further stated that she had never been contacted for any additional work. The interview was terminated and we left the area.
+
+Investigation Continues...
+
+## Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 62 rime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+:ase No • 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+
+On 102005 at approx 0930hrs I assisted with the execution of a search warrant at 358 El Brillo Ave, Palm Beach.
+
+Initially I was assigned to enter the residence and conduct a sweep of the premises for safety purposes. I then accompanied CSEU tech while she photographed the exterior of the house. Once this was complete I was assigned to search certain areas of the house with Det. Dawson as part of the search warrant.
+
+We began in the garage, searching three Mercedes Benz vehicles, a Harley Davidson motorcycle and adjacent closets in the garage. Nothing of evidentiary value was located.
+
+We then searched two closets off the kitchen area on the east side. These can best be described as pantry or storage closets. Nothing of evidentiary value was obtained.
+
+A small office with adjoining bath was then searched. In the bath area I located a phone message book with recent messages. This item was seized as evidence. Please note this bath and shower area are not used as designed but are storage areas containing a variety of items to include a gun safe in the shower and assorted household items.
+
+we then searched a bath area-and closet at the base of the main stairs in the foyer. Inside the closet two massage tables were located as well as partial nude female photographs. These items were later seized as evidence. Nothing of evidentiary value was noted in the bathroom.
+
+We then searched two bedrooms upstairs on the east side of the residence. Located in the bath room of the south bedroom was penis shaped soap. Located in the bedroom of the northern bedroom was penis and vagina shaped soap as well as an adult sex toy. These items were seized as evidence.
+
+We then searched the pool cabana located in the south west corner of the property. Several photographs of nude females were seized as evidence.
+
+I was then assigned to stand by with a person I believe was Douglas Schoettle. Mr. Schoettle was in the residence at the beginning of the search warrant. He was present during the warrant service and subsequent search. I stood by with him until the search was completed and I departed the residence. I had no conversation with him regarding the reason for our presence.
+
+Regarding seized evidence, all items were photographed in place and then collected by CSEU personnel.
+
+This concludes my involvement in this case.
+
+## )ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 63 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+rime: 15:01:37
+
+:ase No 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+
+:\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRAT/VB # 27 \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* IA Reported By: RRAUEL, CURTIS D. 12/21/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/21/os
+
+On Thursday, October 20, 2005 at approximately 0936 hours, I assisted in the execution of a search warrant located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, residence of Jeffrey Epstein. I was instructed by Case Agent Det. Recarey, to secure all computer and media related material from e residence.
+
+Upon my arrival I was directed by Det. Recarey to a room designated as the Kitchen Staff Office. i observed a, Silver in color, CPU with the left side cover removed, exposing the CPU s hardware sitting on floor next to a type desk. The CPU had no discernable identifiers or features in icating a make or model. This CPU was powered off with the power cord not plugged in. The keyboard and mouse were atop the CPU. It should be noted that the CPU was not connected to amonitor, printer, or other media device. On the back Panel of the CPU, I observed an A/V card with RCA jacks attached. This type of hardware would allow audio and video to be downloaded onto the CPU shard disk. The ends of the RCA jacks were unattached at the time of the search and no external camera was located within this room.
+
+The CPU was located on the right side of adesk that held aflat panel LCD screen. The desk also held another keyboard and mouse, indicative of a second computer; however, no other computer was found. It appeared as though a second computer had been recently removed as the cables ends from the monitor, keyboard and mouse were in the same area. A further search of the room revealed no media storage devices, i.e. CD s, Floppy Disks, Zip Disks, etc. This type of media is commonly stored in an area where computers are placed, yet no media was found.
+
+After completing a search of this room, I secured the CPU and turned all items over to the Evidence Custodian for future forensic analysis via a property receipt.
+
+I was then directed by Det. Recarey to a room designated as the Garden Room, where I observed a wooden desk facing west. The desk held a flat screen LCD monitor, keyboard, mouse, media card reader and printer; however, no CPU was located. All of the cables were removed Erom an area where acomputer had once been. A search of the desk area revealed no signs of any media devices.
+
+Det. Recarey directed me to athird location designated as the Cabana room, which is detached from the residence and located just south of the pool. In the South East corner of the room, I observed an office type setting, with an L-shaped desk holding a flat screen LCD monitor, keyboard, mouse and printer; however, no CPU was located. All of the cables were removed from an area where acomputer had once been. A search of the desk area revealed no signs of any media devices.
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 64
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Lase No. : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+
+Det. Recarey directed me to a second detached structure located on the South East corner of the property. This area of this structure was assigned with single letters to identify a particular part of the room. In the office area, designated as Room B, I observed a powered on Dell Dimension 2350, attached to an LCD flat panel monitor. The screen displayed an open Microsoft Internet Explorer browser with URL address of . I observed no other active windows in the Start panel window and photographed screen. The power cord was removed from the back of the Dell CPU and I disconnected the cable modem to prevent remote access. At that time, the Dell CPU, marked with Serial Number 6WTVN21, was secured and turned over the evidence custodian for future forensic analysis via property receipt. I also located several media related items within Room B, which were recorded onto a property receipt and turned over the Evidence Custodians.
+
+I then responded to a Bedroom designated as Room F, where I observed a [REDACTED] in color CPU marked Premio. The Premio CPU was in a computer desk which held a [REDACTED] CRT monitor, both of which were powered on. The CRT monitor displayed a message from Norton Antivirus software, warning of an expired subscription. I observed no other active windows in the Start panel window and photographed screen. I removed the power cable from the back of the Premio CPU and shutdown all other media. The Premio CPU, marked with Serial Number 2000091078, was secured and turned over the evidence custodian for future forensic analysis via property receipt. I also located several media related items within Room F, which were recorded onto a property receipt and turned over the Evidence Custodians.
+
+This concluded my participation in the search of the residence.
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 28 \*\*\*\*\*
+1 Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 12/21/05
+Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/21/05
+
+On December 20, 2005, I contacted ASA Daliah Weiss in an attempt to subpoena the Epstein former houseman, Alfredo Rodriguez. Rodriguez, who resides in Miami, had eluded the process servers previously and was not served the investigative subpoena. A telephone message was left as she is not available during the week of 12/19/2005. I made contact with State Attorney Inv Theresa Wyatt and requested the same via telephone message.
+
+I then researched the victim's [REDACTED] cellular telephone subpoena data which had been received from a previous subpoena request. I analyzed the records which depict several calls from [REDACTED]. The telephone calls start on February 6, 2005 at 12:49 pm; the same day which the victim and the victim's father stated the incident occurred at Epstein's house. The first incoming call was from [REDACTED] residence at 561 333-0180. The second incoming call from [REDACTED]
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 65
+Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+cellular phone 561-308-0282 occurred at 1:02 pm. The call durations were one minute or less. The time frame was within thirteen minutes apart. It should be noted that ██████ s residence was in close proximity to the victim's. The next call occurred at 5:50 pm when the victim telephoned ██████ s residence. Several calls were made after the above mentioned calls both incoming and outgoing to ██████. Further analysis showed no telephone calls to either ██████ cellular telephone or ██████ residence were registered prior to February 6, 2005.
+
+Additionally, I also conducted an analysis on the telephone calls from 305-710-5165. The subscriber information confirmed that the number is registered to Paul A Lavery from Hialeah, Florida. The address was crossed referenced to the Office of Kiraly and ██████ Private Investigators. I researched the web page www.rileykiraly.com which also showed various cases in which they assisted. I also located another web site under www.coralspringssparklandrotary.org in which Mr. ██████ attended a Miami Rotary meeting and confirmed Atty. Roy Black is among his clientele.
+
+The telephone calls revealed Lavery had telephone contact with ██████, ██████, and ██████ either just after I attempted to interview them, or just prior. A background was conducted on Lavery which revealed he holds a current Private Investigator License. A criminal arrest record revealed he had been previously arrested for possession of cocaine and solicitation of prostitution.
+
+I also researched the girls using www.myspace.com. This web site is a new social networking service that allows members to create unique personal profiles online in order to find and communicate with old and new friends. The site allows one to establish your own myspace.com page and decorate the page any way one wishes. I found the following people have myspace sites: ██████, ██████, ██████, ██████, ██████, ██████, ██████, ██████, ██████, ██████, ██████, and ██████.
+
+I received a Cingular Wireless packet which contained a CD which contained the results of the subpoena request for verbatim calls on ██████. An analysis will be conducted in the near future on the phone numbers called.
+
+Investigation Continues.
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 29 \*\*\*\*\*
+Reported By: RECAREY, ██████ 12/27/05
+Entered By: ALTOMARO, NICKLE A. 12/29/05
+
+Upon doing research on the message books recovered in the search warrant, I located the identity of ██████. The telephone number ██████ was registered to ██████. She currently is seventeen years old and is attending the ██████. I
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 66
+Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No. : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+
+responded to [REDACTED] also known as the [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] I located the [REDACTED]. I located [REDACTED] inside the foundation and informed her that I was investigating a case against Jeffrey Epstein and knew she had been at the house. [REDACTED] started to cry and advised she had put that part of her life behind her. I explained that although she is seventeen years old I needed to inform her parents that she would be interviewed. She provided her home telephone number. I attempted contact and left voice mail messages at the house to speak with her parents.
+
+Det. Caristo and I then located [REDACTED] at her residence located at [REDACTED] in [REDACTED]. I attempted to interview her about Jeffrey Epstein. She advised she is so in love with Jeff Epstein and would do anything for him. She further explained that she would not speak with us about him either negative or positive. She asked us to leave her property. I informed her that although she did not wish to speak with us, I had sufficient information at this point in the investigation to know she was at Epstein's house and provided girls to Epstein to work. I also explained that prior to our arrival at her residence I had telephone contact with her father, [REDACTED] who was told she would be interviewed. [REDACTED] is currently seventeen years old and as a juvenile, parental notification would be required. We then left the area and returned to the police station.
+
+While at the police station, I left another telephone message for [REDACTED] parents. I began an analysis of [REDACTED] Cellular telephone. The telephone number 917-855-3363 is assigned to [REDACTED] and the financially responsible party is Jeffrey Epstein of 457 Madison Ave. in New York City, New York. The time frame which was subpoenaed was September 2005, through October 2005. There were eighty seven pages of calls made either to the cell phone or from the cell phone. The local (561) numbers were analyzed. A spread sheet was prepared and placed into the attachment file of who was called.
+
+The unknown numbers were researched using FoneFinder.com and subpoenas were requested to determine subscriber information. This was done to identify additional victims or witnesses. The analysis revealed that [REDACTED] had called the victim/witnesses frequently when Epstein was in the Town of Palm Beach to "work." This confirms what the girls interviewed had previously stated. [REDACTED] would notify them when Epstein was in town and their willingness to "work." The CD was placed into evidence.
+
+Investigation Continues.
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 30 \*\*\*\*\*
+Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 1/03/06
+Entered By: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/03/06
+
+Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 67
+Time: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+Case No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+Center from Cingular Wireless for telephone number 561-308-0282. This was the telephone number for [REDACTED] during the time frame when the victim, [REDACTED] was brought to the Epstein house to "work." An analysis of the phone records, of all incoming and outgoing calls, showed that on February 6, 2005, the day the victim, [REDACTED] was brought to the house, [REDACTED] first called [REDACTED], Epstein's assistant, at 917-855-3363 at 12:50 pm (EST). The next call was made to Epstein's house in Palm Beach, at 12:52 pm (EST). The following call was made to the victim, [REDACTED] at 1:01 pm (EST) and at 1:02 pm (EST). This confirms the information provided by the victim and victim's father. I photo copied the records and enlarged the page 8 of 10 to show the calls made by [REDACTED] on February 6, 2005.
+
+To this date, I have not heard from [REDACTED] parents. I will attempt to establish contact with them during the evening hours. I received a package from Atty. Guy Fronstin, which was hand delivered at the police station. Within the package, was a letter from Alan Dershowitz, and two www.myspace.com profiles. The profiles were that of [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. MySpace.com is a social networking service that allows members to create unique personal profiles online in order to find and communicate with old and new friends. This package was in response to a previous meeting in which Mr. Dershowitz called to assist in the investigation in providing any additional witnesses such as house employees who have been reluctant to speak with law enforcement.
+
+I reviewed the profiles Mr. Dershowitz enclosed. [REDACTED] who designed her blog to be [REDACTED] "still attends [REDACTED]" sends and receives messages from friends which contain some profanity. Upon reviewing her friends' comments section from MySpace, most of her good friends sent messages to establish contact and invite her to go out.
+
+I then reviewed [REDACTED] web blog which was provided by Mr. Dershowitz. Ms. [REDACTED] designed her blog to be [REDACTED]. Her blog states that her interests include music, theater and weed (Marijuana). I reviewed her packet in which [REDACTED] declares her love for her live-in boyfriend. She also describes using marijuana with her boyfriend [REDACTED].
+
+The letter Mr. Dershowitz sent advised he was looking into the allegation that one of the private investigators used by the private attorneys of Epstein, attempted to impersonate or state that they were police officers from Palm Beach. Mr. Dershowitz advised that the investigators used to interview [REDACTED] had "quite a distinct speech impediment", did not claim to be nor did they impersonate themselves as a police officer. This package was sent to both ASA Lana Belohlavic and ASA Daliah Weiss at the State Attorney's Office.
+
+I made telephone contact with ASA Weiss to confirm she received the package and request an interview with [REDACTED], [REDACTED] and Janusz Banasiak. She advised she would assist in attempting to
+
+'ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+'ime: 15:01:37
+
+Page: 68
+
+ase No 1-05-000368 contact Mr Dershowitz. (Continued)
+
+On January 3,,2006, I received a telephone call from ASA Weiss who informed me that she made telephone contact with Mr, Dershowitz. She had requested the employees be available the week of January 3, 2006. Mr. Dershowitz informed her that the assistants are out of the country and would require additional time to locate them and make them available. 1-;
+
+Investigation Continues.
+
+k\*4\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIvE # 31 \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\* Reported By: MINOT, LORI S. 1/2//g: Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A.
+
+On Thursday, 03/31/05, I started conducting surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At this point I observed at 1155 hours, a Tan Altima bearing FL tag A303AN in Roadway, Black SL bearing FL tag VSSRFW in drive, Tan Honda Civic bearing FL tag X98APM in Roadway, Black Chevy Suburban in driveway and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway. At 1325 Hours I observed Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway, Black Chevy Suburban in driveway, Black Caddy Escalade in drive and a a car bearing FL tag D651BQ. At 1615 hours I observed a Tan Hon ivic, X98APM in roadway, Black Ili/ Suburban in drive, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a Kia car D651BQ in roadway.
+
+On Friday, 04/01/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At 1130 hours I observed a Tan Honda Civic bearing FL tag X98APM in roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a Tan unknown make/model bearing FL tag A303AN in roadway. At 1227 hours, I observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a Black Chevy SW located behind the Escalade. At 1345 hours, I observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway and a Black Chevy SUM in driveway. At 1558 hours, I observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway, Black Chevy SW in driveway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a dark unknown model/make car parked in garage.
+
+On Saturday, 04/02/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At 0713 hours, I observed a Red Explorer bearing FL tag J98JEI in roadway and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway. At 0814 hours, I observed a Red Explorer J98JEI in roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a Tan Honda Civic X98APM. At 0952 hours, I observed a Red Explorer J98JEI in roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway, Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway and also a Grey unknown make/model with a B.M in trunk retrieving landscaping tools.
+
+At 1155 hours, I observed a Grey Camaro bearing FL tag S parking in the roadway in front of 358 El Brillo. A W/F, blond hair, teens to early 20's, thin and tall wearing a tank top and short blue jean shorts, exited the vehicle and walkell'ithe rear of the house. I also observed a Red Explorer J98JEI in roadway, Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway. 'At 1310 hours, I
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 69 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+ease No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) observed a Red Explorer W/F driver leavin the area, Tan subcompact on roadway and a Red Neon bearing FL tag . Then observed 3 W/Fs, approximately 16 to 18 years of age jogging. All 3 females ran into the driveway. There were 2 with blond hair and one hair.
+
+On Sunday, 04/03/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At 0719 hours I observed a Tan Wanda Civic X98APM in roadway and a Black Caddy Escalade. At 0934 hours, I observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway. At 1057 hours I observed only the Tan Honda Civic X98APM.
+
+On Tuesday, 04/05/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Bri At 1052 hours, I observed a Red Explorer J98JEI in roadway, a Explorer, bearing FL taiiiiiKAK in roadway, a Grey Altima bearing FL tag A303AN in roadway, Truck H58LRA in roadway, Black Mercedes in driveway being was !!! by a B/M and an unknown dark car parked in the garage. At 1059 hours a Blue Chevy Suburban drove to the house of 358 El Brillo and parked in the driveway. At 1119 hours, I observed the Fort Truck H58LRA leave the area and the drive was the pool man.
+
+At 1126 hours, I observed a Grey unknown make/model car park in roadway. W/m got out of the car and walked to a house on the south side of El Brillo. At 1406 hours, I observed a Red Explorer parked on roadway and a large box truck parked behind the surveillance suburban.
+
+b\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIvE # 32 \*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\* \*\* t Reported By: , MICHAEL J. 1/03/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/03/06
+
+On 03/31/05, at approximately 1500 hours while conducting surveillance at 358 El Brillo, I observed a Black Cadillac Escalade, unknown tag, a Black Chevrolet Suburban, unknown tag, a Black Mercedes 5600 FL tag U90BQL parked in the east driveway next to the 3-car garage. There was a Tan Honda Civic FL tag X98APM parked on the street in front of the residence.
+
+At approximately 1700 hours, I observed the Black Suburban, Black Escalade, Black Mercedes and Tan Honda Civic parked in the same place. At 1750 hours, there was no change in vehicles. At 1840 hours, I observed the Black Escalade, Black Suburban and Black Mercedes along with a Silver Hyundai Accent FL tag A136AN all parked in the east driveway and a Red Explorer FL tag J98JEI parked on the street in front of the residence.
+
+At 2000 hours, I observed the Black Escalade, Black Suburban parked in the ease driveway and the Red Explorer and Tan Civic parked on the street.
+
+### ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 70 ime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) Escalade and Black Suburban parked in the east driveway and the Tan Honda Civic parked on the street in front of the residence. At 1820 hours, I observed the Suburban and Civic in the same place and aGold Chevrolet Camaro FL tag Se Barked on the street in front of the residence. At 2250 there was no change. At 2330, I observed the Black Escalade parked in the driveway and the Red Explorer parked on the street in front of the residence.
+
+On Saturday, 04/02/05 at approximately 1700 hours, I observed aBlack Escalade, unknown tag, parked in the driveway and aTan Honda Civic FL tag X98AMP parked in the street in front of the residence. At 1805 hours the Escalade and Civic were in the same position and the Black Mercedes FL tag U90BQL was also parked in the east driveway. At 1920 hours the Escalade and Civic were the only vehicles and both were in the same position. At 2030 hours and 2145 hours there were no vehicles observed.
+
+At 2115 hours, I observed a Black Mercedes, 4-door parked in the east driveway FL tag G14CT. At 2300 hours, 2350 hours and 0045 hours, the Black Mercedes was the only vehicle observed.
+
+\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIVE \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Reported By: RECAREY, 1/05/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/05/06
+
+I made contact with Mr.allalle father of SS who was told that I wished to interview his daughter. Mr. dims stated he was aware and had spoken with his daughter about the incident. He stated that his daughter had previously told him that she was hired to model lingerie at a Palm Beach mansion. Mr. S stated he knew nothing else about what she did when she went to "work." Mr. advised he would cooperate with the investigation and make hi:1!!!!Iter available for interviews. I asked if she was available for an interview,astated she was not at home at the moment. I informed him I would make contact with her at a later time. as this information has affected his daughter emotionally. Mr. expressed his interest in the resolution in this matter
+
+On January 4, 2005, I acquired the subpoenas from the State Attorney's Office for Cingular Wireless, Metro PCS, Verizon, Bell South Telecommunications and Sprint for the unknown telephone numbers from cellular telephone. The subpoenas were sent to the respective telephone carriers for subscriber information.
+
+I received a telephone call from State Attorney's Office, who informed me that the former houseman for Jeffrey Epstein, Alfredo Rodriguez, was present at the State Attorney's Office for an interview. Rodriguez was issued an investigative subpoena for an interview on the on-goings at Epstein's house during his employ. I responded to the State Attorney's Office and encountered Mr. Rodriguez waiting in the lobby. I brought Mr. Rodriguez to the interview room.
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 71
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Case No. : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+
+During a sworn taped statement, Mr. Rodriguez stated he was employed by Jeffrey Epstein for approximately six months. He was referred by associates and his employment lasted the months of November 2004 through May 2005. His responsibilities as house manager included being the [REDACTED] chauffer, chef, houseman, run errands for Mr. Epstein and provide for Epstein's guests. Rodriguez advised he had very limited contact with Mr. Epstein. If Rodriguez needed to relay a message to Mr. Epstein, he would have to notify Epstein's secretary "Leslie" in New York City, who would then notify Epstein's personal assistant, Sarah, who would relay the message to Epstein. Rodriguez stated Epstein did not want to see or hear the staff when he was in residence.
+
+I asked Rodriguez if Epstein received many guests during his stay in Palm Beach. Rodriguez advised he had many guests. I asked specifically about masseuses coming to the house. Rodriguez stated he would have two massages a day. Epstein would have one massage in the morning and one massage in the afternoon everyday he was in residence. Rodriguez stated he would be informed to expect someone and make them comfortable until either Sarah or Epstein would meet with them.
+
+Rodriguez stated once the masseuses would arrive, he would allow them entry into the kitchen area and offer them something to drink or eat. They would then be encountered by either Sarah or Epstein. They would be taken upstairs to provide the massage. I asked Rodriguez if any of the masseuses appeared young in age. He advised he didn't ask their ages but felt they were very young. Rodriguez stated they ate like his own daughter who is in high school. Rodriguez stated they would eat tons of cereal and drink milk all the time. Rodriguez stated the girls that would come appeared to be too young to be masseuses. He stated one time under Epstein's direction, he delivered a dozen roses to [REDACTED] for one of the girls that came to provide a massage. He knew the girls were still in high school and were of high school age. I asked Rodriguez about the massages. He felt there was a lot more going on than just massages. He would clean Mr. Epstein's bedroom after the alleged massages and would discover massager/vibrators and sex toys scattered on the floor. He also said he would wipe down the vibrators and sex toys and put them away in an armoire. He described the armoire as a small [REDACTED] armoire which was on the wall close to Epstein's bed.
+
+Epstein ordered Rodriguez to go to the Dollar rent a car and rent a car for the same girl he brought the roses to, so that she could drive her self to Epstein's house without incident. Rodriguez said the girl always needed rides to and from the house. Rodriguez referred himself as a "human ATM machine" and was ordered by Epstein to maintain a minimum balance of \$2,000 dollars on him at all times. When a girl would come by the house and Mr. Epstein was either not in residence or was not at home at the time, Rodriguez was to provide the girl (masseuse) several hundred dollars for their time and to notify Epstein the amount they were given. Epstein also ordered Rodriguez to
+
+)ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 72 'ime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+lase No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) purchase several gifts and provide them as tips to the girls. I asked what kind of gifts. Rodriguez stated he purchased IPODS, jewelry, anything the girls would want.
+
+Rodriguez stated the amount of girls that came to the house was approximately fifteen. Each of the girls knew each other and all seemed to know at who Mr. Epstein was. When asked to identify these girls, Rodriguez stated he could not at the moment but knew he wrote their names down on a journal he kept during his employ with Mr. Epstein. He kept a journal in the event he needed to explain either to Mr. Epstein or his assistants what was done at the house or who visited the house as he stated he was in-charge of Mr. Epstein's personal security while in Palm Beach. informed him I would need to view this journal to which he stated he would research the book and contact me to provide the book. The interview was concluded and left the area. I returned back to the police station where the micro cassette was placed into evidence. At approximately 7:20 pm, I was notified Rodriguez located the journal and would call me on January 5, 2005 to provide the journal.
+
+Investigation Continuesaa
+
+r\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIVE # 34 \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Reported By: RECAREY, 1/09/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, A. 1/10/06
+
+On January 5, 2006, I attempted to meet with Alfredo Rodriguez to recover the folder or journal in which he kept the notes that were given to him during his employ with Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. He kept this folder to justify what he did during his employ should the need arise to justify what occurred with the monies he had to keep or any questions as to the petty cash he withdrew from the household account from the bank. At approximately 10:00 pm, I attempted contact with Mr. Rodriguez and discovered he was assisting his wife at her place of employment and would not be able to meet with me. Mr. Rodriguez stated he would meet with me on January 6, 2006, in Broward County, in the morning hours.
+
+On January 6, 2006, at approximately 9:00 am, I received a telephone call from Mr. Rodriguez who advised he had the file in hand and would be traveling northbound to meet with me in Broward County. At 10:50 am, I met with Alfredo Rodriguez at the parking lot of Bank of America in Boca Raton on Yamato Road and Military Trail (known as the Polo Center). Rodriguez produced a folder which contained documents, a note with Mr. Epstein's stationary with direction to deliver a bucket of roses toSunimaININISaftereellif high school drama performance. Also in that same note was direction to rent a car forlamoilligkand direction to extend the rental contract. I returned to the Palm Beach Police Station and placed the folder into evidence.
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 73
+Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+01-04-06, for telephone number 561-302-1844. The phone number is registered to Dr [REDACTED] Bard, from West Palm Beach. Dr. Bard is a chiropractor and has an office located 4275 Okeechobee Blvd in West Palm Beach. The cellular number is Dr Bard's personal cellular number.
+
+On January 9, 2006, Det. Caristo and I traveled to 622 Holly Drive in Palm Beach Gardens in an attempt to locate [REDACTED], who had been previously seen on the property and identified through her Florida Drivers License and Florida license Plate. A business card was left for her to return my call. We then traveled to the [REDACTED] and located [REDACTED] agreed to speak with us and in a private room within the school provided us a taped statement.
+
+During the statement, [REDACTED] advised that when she was fifteen or sixteen years of age, she was taken to Jeffrey Epstein's house by her associate, [REDACTED] stated this occurred late May 2004 or early June 2004. She was told she could model lingerie for money for a wealthy Palm Beacher. She remembered they traveled by yellow cab from their residence in West Palm Beach to Epstein's house. She remembered encountering Epstein at the front door during the evening hours.
+
+He introduced himself and brought them into the kitchen so that the chef could prepare something for them to eat. After having a meal, [REDACTED] and Epstein brought [REDACTED] upstairs to a [REDACTED] bedroom which had a large bathroom. She observed a large style shower, sauna and there was a large massage bed also in the bathroom. Epstein entered a room within the bathroom and came out wearing only a towel. [REDACTED] said they would provide a massage on his feet. [REDACTED] asked why they are doing this. [REDACTED] told her this was part of the routine and told her to rub his legs and calves. Epstein had told [REDACTED] to get comfortable. [REDACTED] continued rubbing Epstein's calves and feet. At Epstein's direction, [REDACTED] then left the room leaving [REDACTED] there by herself. Epstein told [REDACTED] to get comfortable. [REDACTED] removed her blouse and pants and stayed in her panties. [REDACTED] stated she was not wearing a bra. She believed she was wearing thong panties. Epstein turned over onto his back and began touching her. Epstein touched her breasts and began touching her in her vagina area. Epstein instructed her to rub his chest and rub his nipples. [REDACTED] stated the touching consisted over the panties on the first time; he stroked her vagina but stayed on top of the panties. During the first massage, she stated Epstein was stroking her and began masturbating himself at the same time. He put his hands under the towel and appeared as to masturbate himself however she never saw his penis. She continued rubbing his chest until he grabbed her and pulled her closer to him. He appeared to have climaxed because after he pulled her closer to him the massage was over. Epstein had told her that there was two hundred dollars for her on the dresser. He told her that she could not tell anyone what happened at the house or bad things could happen. [REDACTED] stated she went to Epstein's house three
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 74
+Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+or four times total. [REDACTED] was very scared and felt very nervous. She knew because of Epstein's money he was powerful. After the massage, Epstein ordered his houseman at the time to drive the girls home. The employee was to drop off the girls at their house and watch them go inside their house.
+
+[REDACTED] could not remember who the houseman was. She stated Epstein and his assistant Sarah would call her at her father's house to arrange for her to come and "work." She advised each time she returned to the house, Epstein would do the same thing. [REDACTED] stated it was a routine with Epstein. She would rub his feet and calves. He would then turn over and begin to touch her on her vagina area. The only difference was that it was done without panties. Epstein's fingers would stroke her vagina area as he would masturbate and finally climax and the massage would be over. She was paid \$200.00 each time she went. Each time she went she was reminded not to speak of what happened at the house and that she would be contacted again. She began to purposely miss the calls when either Sarah or Epstein would call her. She once brought a friend, [REDACTED] unknown last name, to work for Epstein. She was paid \$200.00 for bringing [REDACTED] stated she no longer returned to work for Epstein. She also stated that she wanted to notify the police of what happened at the house. [REDACTED] stated she was scared of what could have happened to her or her family if she notified authorities.
+
+On January 10, 2006, I received the results from the subpoena from BellSouth Telecommunications for telephone number [REDACTED]. The number is assigned to Mr. [REDACTED], [REDACTED] father in [REDACTED]. I also received the results from Western Union which confirmed the money order sent to [REDACTED] from Jeffrey Epstein in New York City. The "wire" was sent by Jeffrey Epstein of 457 Madison Ave in New York City on December 23, 2004 at 12:05 pm. The amount of \$222.00 was charged to Epstein's credit card so that [REDACTED] could receive \$200.00 in [REDACTED]. The twenty-two dollars was for processing and local fees to send the money via Western Union. A copy of the check presented to [REDACTED] was also attached to the receipt of the wire. This confirmed what [REDACTED] advised she received as a Christmas bonus from Epstein.
+
+Investigation continues.
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 35 \*\*\*\*\*
+Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 1/10/06
+Entered By: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/10/06
+
+I received and reviewed the Cingular Wireless results from the subpoena requests for subscriber information for telephone numbers 561-818-8361, 561-389-6874 and 561-309-0079. The first number, 561-818-8361, is assigned to Janusz Banasiak in care of Jeffrey Epstein of 457 Madison Ave in New York City. Banasiak is the current houseman/house manager for 358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach, Fl 33480. The second number, 561-389-6874, is assigned to [REDACTED] of
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 75
+Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+1685 61st Drive in West Palm Beach. Research conducted on [REDACTED]
+revealed she is a licensed Massage therapist with a Florida
+conditional/active license number MA39723. [REDACTED] had been previously
+arrested for battery / unwanted touching and DUI. Requests for copies
+of the reports involving the arrests were requested from the Palm
+Beach County Sheriff's Office. The last number 561-309-0079 is
+assigned to [REDACTED] Rofrano of 9850 Alt A1A in Palm Beach Gardens.
+Research on Mr. Rofrano, revealed that he is a Florida Chiropractic
+Physician.
+
+Vehicles that were previously documented on the property while
+surveillance was being conducted were researched. I determined a tan
+Chevrolet Camaro, bearing Florida license [REDACTED], was seen on the
+property in which a young [REDACTED] female was seen entering the Epstein
+property. Research was conducted which revealed that the vehicle is
+registered to [REDACTED] of [REDACTED]. Mr. [REDACTED] has two daughters,
+[REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] is currently residing in
+Connecticut and [REDACTED] is residing with her father in [REDACTED].
+[REDACTED] Research on [REDACTED] revealed she was recently involved
+in a traffic stop in Lake Clarke Shores in May 19, 2005. A request to
+discover any information from the stop was requested.
+
+I spoke with ASA Daliah Weiss who informed me that Janusz Banasiak
+will be available for an interview tomorrow at the State Attorney's
+Office in West Palm Beach at 1:30 pm. I informed her that I would be
+at her office for the interview.
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 36 \*\*\*\*\*
+Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 1/23/06
+Entered By: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/23/06
+
+On January 19, 2006, Det. Caristo and I met with [REDACTED] at
+622 Holly Drive in Palm Beach Gardens. [REDACTED] was identified as a
+licensed massage therapist who had previously been seen on Epstein's
+property when physical surveillance was done. [REDACTED] was told of the
+on going investigation and I felt she may have information pertaining
+to the case. During a sworn taped statement, [REDACTED] stated she met
+Epstein three years ago when Ghaline Maxwell approached her while she
+was attending Palm Beach Atlantic College to work around Epstein's
+house. Maxwell had told her that they needed some girls to work at
+the house to answer phones and run errands. [REDACTED] accepted the job
+and began working at Epstein's house on El Brillo in Palm Beach.
+[REDACTED] stated it was a part time job during the time she went to Palm
+Beach Atlantic College. She continued going to Epstein's house and
+would be notified when Epstein would travel to Palm Beach. [REDACTED]
+advised she would be notified by Maxwell, Epstein or Sarah, his
+assistant, when he would travel to Palm Beach. [REDACTED] stated she
+began providing massages to Epstein before she became a massage
+therapist. She continued giving massages not only to Epstein but to
+[REDACTED], and Sarah, his assistant. [REDACTED] was asked about
+what occurred during the massages. [REDACTED] stated as she was twenty
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 76
+Program: CMS301L
+
+ise No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+three years old when she met Epstein, anything that happened was between two consenting adults. I explained to her that she was not in any trouble however as part of this investigation, I needed to ask certain questions. [REDACTED] stated that there were times that Epstein would ask her to perform during the massage. He would instruct her to rub his nipples as he masturbated himself. [REDACTED] stated she felt "grossed" about the behavior but as she was getting paid, she just continued. [REDACTED] also advised she would on occasion perform the massages naked. Epstein would on occasion, utilize the vibrator/massager on her vagina area when she performed the massages. [REDACTED] explained that Epstein never exposed himself to her as he maintained himself covered under the towel he would be wearing. When Epstein would masturbate he would be covered.
+
+I asked if [REDACTED] ever received any gifts, or any gratuities from Epstein. [REDACTED] advised aside from being paid well, she advised Epstein took care of her tuition from Palm Beach Atlantic College. She received a rental car for a week when her scooter broke down.
+
+Additionally she received other gifts from Epstein. Epstein also recommended her to another client who resides at Breakers Row in Palm Beach. The client she was referred to was "Glenn" unknown last name, and his wife, who she provided a massages to. The statement was concluded and placed into evidence upon our return to the Palm Beach Police Department.
+
+While at the police station, I researched Florida tag [REDACTED] which was also previously seen on the property when there was physical surveillance being done at the property. The vehicle is registered to [REDACTED] of [REDACTED]. Researching Mr. [REDACTED] and the vehicle revealed that his daughter, [REDACTED] had been driving the vehicle and was cited for unlawful speed in Lake Clark Shores. The vehicle is a tan, Chevrolet Camaro, 2-door. I researched [REDACTED], date of birth, [REDACTED], resides at [REDACTED] in [REDACTED], has a my space page called www.myspace.com/[REDACTED]. In her web page, shows various photos of [REDACTED] photographed at a beach. An interview is forthcoming.
+
+A review of the video disks which was extracted at the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Computer Crime Unit revealed that only one hidden camera was functional at the time. Several images of Epstein working at his office were seen. Additional footage of [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] was seen. There was other footage of females seen. The identity of the females is unknown at this time, until such time as I meet with certain females to show the video footage to confirm if, in fact, it is them on the video. At this time it appears that [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] are seen sitting with Epstein beside his desk in the evening hours. Due to poor lighting, a direct confirmation cannot be made at this time.
+
+Inv. Continues.
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 77
+Program: CMS301L
+
+Date No. : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 37 \*\*\*\*\*
+A Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 1/30/06
+Entered By: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/30/06
+
+On January 25, 2006, Det Caristo and I, responded to [REDACTED] in [REDACTED] and met with [REDACTED] stated last year, when she was seventeen years of age, she met Jeffrey Epstein through her former room mate [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] was allegedly dating Epstein at the time. [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] had once cohabitated together when they modeled. [REDACTED] explained [REDACTED] called her on her telephone and advised her that she was in Palm Beach and requested to see her. [REDACTED] made arrangements to meet with her at Epstein's house. [REDACTED] arrived and met Epstein and [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] went to the Palm Beach Mall together and went shopping. [REDACTED] advised that [REDACTED] and she had received money from Epstein to go to the mall. They visited Victoria's Secret and purchased undergarments from the store utilizing monies given by Epstein. [REDACTED] advised she purchased one item and [REDACTED] purchase various items. The money used to purchase the items was the money given by Epstein.
+
+[REDACTED] and [REDACTED] continued shopping and having a day together. [REDACTED] stated [REDACTED] explained how she and Epstein have been dating each other and he has been paying all of her bills. [REDACTED] claimed [REDACTED] advised they met in New York and had been dating ever since. They later returned to Epstein's home and encountered Epstein. He had a brief conversation with [REDACTED] about her modeling career. He knew of her modeling career from [REDACTED]. He requested to see her modeling portfolio and explained that he could help her with modeling jobs. [REDACTED] had her book with her to show [REDACTED] and showed the book to Epstein. He commented negatively about her photographs and portfolio. [REDACTED] felt uncomfortable with the comments made as she had been working with other professional modeling companies who had offered her work from her photographs. Epstein requested to see what was purchased at the mall. [REDACTED] took out the undergarments which were purchased. She immediately showed Epstein different sets purchased. Epstein then requested to view what [REDACTED] purchased. [REDACTED] was reluctant to show the outfit however since it was Epstein's money that purchased the item, she pulled it out of the bag. Epstein asked her to try it on. [REDACTED] looked at [REDACTED] who told her "yeah, try it on." Feeling compelled to try the undergarment outfit on; she went to another room and put on the bra and panty set. She walked out to the living room where they were sitting, and modeled the suit. She then went back into the other room and changed back into her clothes. [REDACTED] returned into the room and told [REDACTED] she would be going home. [REDACTED] scheduled another day for [REDACTED] to return for massages with her.
+
+[REDACTED] stated within that same week, she returned to meet with [REDACTED] and have a massage. [REDACTED] had told her that she would be unable to stay with her as she would be going on a bike ride with Epstein. [REDACTED] explained she could stay at the house and take advantage of the massage.
+
+### 'ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+'ime: 15:01:37
+
+Page: 78
+
+ase No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) MIS stated she met with an unknown massage therapist and had the table already set up in a guest room. IIIIIMOremoved her clothing, leaving her panties on, and wrapped herself with atowel for the massage. a remembered that the door to the guest room was closed but not locked. As the therapist was working her back, the door was opened by Epstein and entered into the room. gallewas trying to conceal herself as Epstein was talking to her about his chiropractic session. Epstein told turn over onto her back. le eventually turned over exposing her breasts to Epstein as he applied pressure on her shoulder and her waist. IMMO stated Epstein "popped" her back. removed her self from the table, got dressed and left the house. further statedahad attempted to call her on several occasions to invite her back to Epstein's house to which replied "I'm busy."4OOMMOsdvised she has not had contact with either COOMMoIMMEmoor Jeffrey Epstein. It should be noted that her mother, 441ImpollONIMPwas present during the interview. The interview was concluded and we thanked them her for their time.
+
+.\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIVE iii\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Reported By: RECAREY, 1/31/06 Entered By.:.ALTomAR0, NICKIE A. 1/31/06
+
+On January 27, 200L(.\_2made telephone contact with , at 772-878-7280. 'I'll. is alicensed massa e therapist who had frequented the home of Jeffrey Epstein. has been unable to meet with me in Palm Beach County, and because she lives and works in Port St Lucie, a telephone interview was conducted. I explained to that there was an on going investigation involving Jeffrey Epstein.
+
+stated she knows Epstein and has been em lo ed by him for approximately three years. Epstein has paid to erform Swedish Massages (Deep Tissue) on him and other guests. explained that approximately three year ago she met Ohislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein through amutual friend. Epstein and Maxwell were looking for a massage therapist. stated since that time, she is notified when Epstein is coming to Palm Beach. house and provides the massage or massages. explained she has also massaged his guests and assistants. Venero continued that she is paid \$100.00 and hour for the massage. stated she comes to his
+
+Made' her fee stated she only provided massages I asked if anything occurred during the massage that would have and that was it. She never was approached for anything else. I asked if Epstein ever asked her to rub his chest she stated she would not rub his chest as that is not part of her massage. explained that she was not Epstein's type. The girls she woul see at Epstein's house were very thin, beautiful and without tattoos. explained she has several tattoos that are visible. Maxwell and Epstein have commented negatively about her tattoos previously when she has provided massages.
+
+### ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 79 ime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+Ise No • 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+
+IIIIII stated she only provided massages for Epstein and his associates and nothing happened during those massages. stated as she does Swedish style massages, the patient is usualliie after the massages. I thanked her for her assistance and the interview was concluded at this time.
+
+I received a facsimile from T-Mobile Cellular service on telephone number 561-317-5844, which is assigned to David Rodgers, pilot for Mr. Epstein, who resides in Lake Worth. Rod ers' telephone number was dialed on several occasions by . A background on Rodgers indicated he has avalid FAA pilot license First Class for the Southern FAA Region. Rodgers has another historical FAA license for Airline Transport Pilot.
+
+### Investigation Continues.
+
+\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIvE 39 \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Reported By: RECAREY, 2/14/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 2/16/06
+
+On Frida 1:00pm, station. February 3, 2006, I had made arrangements to meet with at the Palm Beach Police Station. At approximately arrived at the police , she stated she met old and was brought to She advised this occurred on had informed her if she wanted a reed and was brought to stated she had been to the house on many occasions during the massage sessions. also stated she would remove her clothing to provide the massage on Epstein. advised Epstein would pay her \$300.00 to rub his back, legs an c est. During the massages, Epstein would masturbate himself as she rubbed his chest. I asked her if Epstein ever touched her breasts during the massages. replied. "Yes." I asked her if Epstein ever touched or massaged her vagina. stated he had on several occasions. I asked her if he ever penetrated her with either his penis or any other objects. stated that during a massage he inserted his fingers in her vaiiiiiiii she massaged him. She stated this occurred one time only. stated the massage would be over when Epstein would climax onto atowel. I asked if she had any formal massage training to which she replied was then asked if she ever brought anyone stated she brought two people to the and her friend. During an interview with Epstein when she turned eighteen years Epstein's house to provide a massage. May of 2005. She advised to provide a massage for \$200.00. Epstein's house to provide a massage. ca he did not. to the house to "work." house. She advised she rece ved money for bringing people to the house to "work." stated she brought a girl name and her friend Tory was still waitin for in the lobby of the police station. I thanked for her time and her cooperation and escorted her to the lobby.
+
+I asked if I could speak with her about this investigation. I
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 80
+Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+brought her to the interview room and explained to her that I was conducting an investigation on Jeffrey Epstein and felt she may have information pertaining to the investigation. [REDACTED] identified herself as [REDACTED] and resides in Wellington, Florida. She advised approximately a year ago she was brought to Epstein's house to provide a massage for money. [REDACTED] stated she needed to make money and felt it was a quick way to make some money. [REDACTED] stated she was brought to the house by [REDACTED] and was introduced to Epstein and his assistant. She was brought to his main bathroom and provided a massage. I asked her if she provided the massage naked. [REDACTED] stated she did. She rubbed Epstein's legs, back and chest. I asked [REDACTED] if Epstein touched her during the massage. She advised he did not, however he did masturbate himself as she rubbed his chest. Once he climaxed the massage was over. She was paid her money and left the area. [REDACTED] advised it occurred one time and she never returned to Epstein's house. The interview was concluded and [REDACTED] was escorted to the lobby.
+
+I located a telephone number for [REDACTED] and attempted to contact her on several occasions. I called [REDACTED] and spoke with Ms. [REDACTED] who advised she would speak with me in [REDACTED] where she resides. Due to a scheduling conflict, we were unable to meet. I informed her I would contact her to schedule another appointment to speak with her about this investigation. I have attempted to meet with her and make telephone contact with negative results.
+
+On February 13, 2006, I met with David Rodgers at 7318 Heathley Drive in Lake Worth. Rodgers was identified as Epstein's pilot. I spoke with Rodgers who advised he has been employed with Epstein since 1991. He flies both planes for Epstein depending where he wants to fly to. Rodgers was asked about passengers in the plane he flies. Rodgers stated unless Epstein flew to his island off of St [REDACTED], there would be no way of knowing who the passengers were. I mentioned a recent flight to Ohio, where Rodgers flew to Ohio to pick up [REDACTED]. Rodgers stated he recalled flying on several occasions and did remember [REDACTED]. Rodgers stated once he is in the cockpit, he does not know who the passengers are. When he prepares the passenger manifests, he lists Epstein and his assistants he knows by name, Sarah and Adrianna. Rodgers stated he would list either female or male passengers on the manifests only to keep a count on the passengers. Mrs. Rodgers came into the living room and recommended that her husband consult with an attorney. Mr. Rodgers agreed he would speak with the family attorney to inform him of this questioning. I explained to Mr. Rodgers that he was not the suspect in this investigation and ceased all questions. Based on the fact Rodgers could not advise who passengers were in the plane, I then left the area.
+
+I attempted to locate [REDACTED] at [REDACTED] in [REDACTED]. I left my business card for her to return my call. On February 14, 2006, at 12:06 pm, I received a call back from Ms. [REDACTED]
+
+ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 81 ime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+Ise No • 1-05-000368s (Continued) on my voice mail. Ms Se left her telephone number for a return call 561-662-3098. I left her a message to return call.
+
+Investigation Continues..
+
+\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIvg # 40 \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Reported By: RECAREY, 2/21/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 2/22/06
+
+On February 15, 2006, I made telephone contact with MOOMMOMMIMOMOrwho provided directions to where I could locate her. Det Caristo and I responded to 806 Old Dixie Hwy in Lake Park to meet with Upon my arrival, I met with - in the parking lot directly behind MAACO Auto Painting. She was advised I was there to speak with her about an ag ing investigation that concerned Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach. stated she knows Epstein very well and did not want to speak with me about Mr. Epstein. She was very fond of Epstein and did not want to speak with me about anything concerning Jeffrey Epstein. I explained to her that she was seen at the house and I would like to speak with her. She stated she knew there was an investigation and that I had spoken with other people and therefore should know what happened at Epstein's house. Ogillp ended the conversation and walked back into her boyfriends business, Blanton Automotive. Det Caristo and I left the area and returned to the police station.
+
+Investigation continues.
+
+\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIVE # 41 Reported By: RECAREY, 4/10/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 4/10/06 \*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
+
+A Grand Jury Session was requested during the month of February 2006, in which all the girls that had been interviewed would have been called to testify before the Grand Jury to seek an indictment against Jeffrey Epstein. Due to subsequent meetings with the State Atto'rney's Office and Defense Attorney Alan Dershowitz the Grand Jury was postponed until a later time. Dershowitz had provided a package of material on the main victims in this case in which they appear on myspace.com and speak about alcohol use and some marijuana use. The State Attorney's Office wanted time to review the material.
+
+I requested additional subpoenas from the State Attorney's Office in which I requested information from Dollar Rent a Car and Jet Aviation. The information requested from Dollar Rent a Car was for the rented vehicle by Alfredo Rodriguez while under the employ of Epstein for one of the victims. The other subpoena requested was for Jet Aviation for dates and times when Epstein's planes were in Palm Beach County.
+
+I continued to research other names that were acquired either from .nterviews or intelligence gathered during the investigation. I
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 82
+Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No. : 1-05-000368
+
+(Continued)
+
+located [redacted] in [redacted]. I responded to [redacted] [redacted] in [redacted]. During the interview, [redacted] stated she knew I would be speaking with her. [redacted] stated she was first introduced to Epstein when she turned eighteen years old. [redacted] stated she was sure of her age as it was her senior year in [redacted]. She advised she was brought there to make money and was told she would have to provide a massage to this Palm Beach guy. She remembered she met Epstein and his assistant Sarah in the kitchen area. She stated she was taken by one of her friends, [redacted]. She stated she went upstairs with Sarah while Epstein got ready for the massage. He exited his bathroom naked and [redacted] turned around. Epstein asked her if being naked offended her. [redacted] stated it made her uncomfortable. Epstein then put on a towel and lay on the table. [redacted] stated she rubbed his back and feet. She stated she had no massage training or experience. [redacted] stated during the massage, Epstein attempted to touch her buttocks. [redacted] pulled away as he touched her buttocks. She told him again she was uncomfortable with him touching her. Epstein then cut the massage short and became upset with her. Epstein paid her \$200.00 for the massage and told her to leave the house. [redacted] never returned to the house. She did advise of one time she went with [redacted] however she waited in the car for [redacted] as she did not want to go into the house. At the conclusion of [redacted] visit with Epstein they left the area. [redacted] stated she had heard from other girls that have gone to the house that Epstein now required them to do the massage naked and allow him to touch them in their private areas for monies. The interview was concluded as [redacted] did not have any other information to provide.
+
+I then learned from the original victim, [redacted] the defense attorney had learned of her identity. I spoke with the father of the victim, who stated there has been a private investigator on his house photographing his family and chasing visitors who come to the house. He provided a Florida License of E79-4EH. This vehicle is registered to Ivan Robles of West Palm Beach. Robles is a private investigator intern who is licensed by the state. I informed the State Attorney's Office of the above information.
+
+I received the Grand Jury subpoenas to be delivered to three victims for a Grand Jury session to be held on April 18, through April 20, 2006.
+
+Investigation continues.
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 42 \*\*\*\*\*
+Reported By: RECAREY, [redacted] 4/14/06
+Entered By: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 4/18/06
+
+The Grand Jury Subpoenas were personally served to the individuals they were issued to. On April 5, 2006, at approximately 7:30 p.m., I personally served the parents of [redacted] who had informed me that the private investigators were still photographing the family. On April
+
+PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
+Incident Report
+
+Page: 83
+Program: CMS301L
+
+use No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
+10, 2006, at approximately 2:30 p.m., I served [redacted] at her residence in [redacted]. The subpoena was given to her mother, [redacted].
+
+I learned through one of the victims [redacted] that she was personally contacted through a source that has maintained contact with Epstein. The source assured [redacted] she would receive monetary compensation for her assistance in not cooperating with law enforcement. [redacted] also stated she was told, "Those who help him will be compensated and those who hurt him will be dealt with." I told [redacted] that tampering with a witness/victim is an arrestable offense and very serious. I asked her who approached her during this encounter. [redacted] originally was reluctant to provide the name of the person who approached her to offer her not to testify because she felt they were still friends.
+
+On April 11, 2006, Det Dawson and I traveled to Tallahassee, Florida and met with the victim, [redacted] identified [redacted] W/F, [redacted], as the person who approached her in [redacted] Palm Beach while she was home during Spring Break in March 2006. [redacted] also stated she did not want to pursue the intimidation charges on [redacted] was concerned that the defense attorney was given a copy of the report as certain things she had told me in confidence were repeated to her by Beal. Prior to our departure, the victim was given a copy of her subpoena for the Grand Jury which was scheduled to commence April 18, 2006.
+
+Upon our return from Tallahassee, I notified the State Attorney's Office of what was told to me. I also notified them that the subpoenas were delivered to the witnesses and they would be calling for arrangements for the date and time needed for the Grand Jury. I spoke with ASA Weiss and informed her of the possible intimidation by the defense.
+
+On April 13, and April 14, 2006 I attempted contact on several occasions with ASA Weiss and ASA Belohlavic to ascertain when the victims needed to report for Grand Jury testimony. Messages were left on their voicemail. On April 17, 2006, during the hours of 9:00 am and 11:30 am, I again left messages for ASA Weiss and ASA Belohlavic for either of them to return my call as I had not heard from the State Attorney's Office as to the time and date of the Grand Jury.
+
+At approximately 12:30 pm, I went to the State Attorney's Office and located ASA Weiss and ASA Belohlavic in their offices. I entered ASA Belohlavic's office who informed me that she was going to return my call. She explained that an offer was made to the defense, Atty Guy Fronstin and Atty Alan Dershowitz. The offer is 1 count of Agg Assault with intent to commit a felony, five years probation, with adjudication withheld. Epstein would have to submit to psychiatric/sexual evaluation and no unsupervised visits with minors. When asked about the all the other victims, ASA Belohlavic stated that was the only offer made as to one victim, [redacted] ASA Belohlavic cell phone rang and went to voice mail. She checked her voice mail and played the message on speaker. The caller identified himself as
+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+\_---------
+
+)ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 84 rime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+:ase No 1-05-000368 (Continued) Atty Guy Fronstin and acknowledged the deal made between them. ,Fronstin stated in the message, he spoke with his client, Jeffrey Epstein, and agreed to the deal. Fronstin asked to call off the grand jury as they would accept this deal. Belohlavic stated aprobable cause would be needed to book Epstein in the county jail and would let me know as to when it would be needed. I explained my disapproval of the deal and not being consulted prior to the deal being offered. However I expressed that was only my opinion and the final approval would come from the Chief of Police. She explained to have Chief Reiter call Barry Krisher about the deal. I left the area and returned to the police station where I briefed the Chief about the deal offered.
+
+I checked my voice mail messages and discovered a message from stepmother for the victims She was calling because the State Attorney's Office still had not returned any of her calls as to when they are needed for this case. I then called ASA Belohlavic's office and left messages for her to call the victims on this case and explained to them what the State Attorney's Office had done.
+
+On April 17, 2006, at approximately 4:30 pm, State Attorney Investigator Tim Valentine called to officially notify me of the cancellation of the Grand Jury. He requested I contact the victims that had been served to appear, to notify them of the cancellation. I advised Valentine that as this Grand Jury session was called based on the State Attorney's Office decision to have the victims heard by the Grand Jury that I felt it was the States Attorney's Office responsibility to contact the victims and advise them of the reason they were no longer needed.
+
+e \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIVE # 43 \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Reported By: RECAREY, 5/04/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, A. 5/04/06
+
+As I had not received any contact from anyone at the State Attorney's Office, on May 1, 2006, I ptepared three arrest warrant requests and submitted them to the State Attorney's Office. The packages were delivered to the Crimes against Children Unit in care of ASA Lana Belohlavek. Jeffrey Epstein's arrest warrant was requested for 4 counts of Unlawful Sexual activity with certain minors and one count of Lewd and Lascivious Molestation. , Epstein's assistant's, arrest warrant request w!", Illats of Principal in the 1st degree Unlawful Sexual activity with certain minors and one count of Principal in the 1st degree Lewd and Lascivious Molestation. arrest warrant request was for Lewd and Lascivious Acts on a victim under 16 years of age. The receipt of delivery was signed and brought back to the records division at the police department.
+
+On May 3, 2006, at approximately 2:54 pm, I received atelephone call e.rom ASA Daliah Weiss on my cellular telephone. ASA Weiss advised she ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 85 ime: 15:01:37 • Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No 1-05-000368 . (Continued) has been taken off the Jeffrey Epstein case because her husband is employed with Attorney Jack Goldberger. Attorney Goldberger is the attorney of record for Jeffrey Epstein. His previous attorney, Guy Fronstin, has been fired from representation. ASA Lana Belohlavek has been assigned the case. ASA Weiss stated she can no longer speak about the Epstein case with me. I thanked her for her telephone call. ASA Weiss further stated that ASA Belohiavek would be calling me.
+
+k\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIvE # 44 \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*+\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Reported By: RECAREY, 5/15/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, A. 5/15/06
+
+On May 10, 2006, information was received that Epstein's associate, Leslie Wexner, The Limited Inc, CEO's, plane had arrived in West Palm Beach, PBIA. The plane, a Gulf stream 4 bearing a N900LS registration, was on the tarmac at Galaxy Aviation. As Epstein had recently acquired the services of a new attorney, and the fact that Epstein's house is currently under remodeling, it was believed that Epstein may be in Palm Beach. I conducted physical surveillance at the residence, 358 El Brillo Way. I observed a large construction crew conducting remodeling at the house. The contractor, David Norr, was observed driving a =I Explorer, in color. The vehicle has a Florida registration of F30QQP. IFIlleft Epstein's house and traveled north on County Road. Det Caristo and I conducted surveillance on Norr. Norr traveled to several construction sites and checked on certain jobs. Surveillance was discontinued on Norr and Det Caristo and traveled to Galaxy Aviation. I observed the plipaplane with a blue stripe along the body and tail of the plane; it number was visible on the bottom of the tail, closer to the body of the plane. We maintained visual surveillance on the plane until 4:57 p.m., when a caravan of Cadillac Escalades drove onto the tarmac. We observed several people exit the vehicles and discovered that they were part of the executive team for Limited Inc. The executives were in Palm Beach County for an executive meeting for the day. They arrived in Palm Beach County on May 9, 2006 at 9:30 pm and were scheduled to leave on the 10th at 5:00 pm.
+
+On May 12, 2006, I met with ASA Lana Belohiavek at the State Attorney's Office. She explained that her boss, Barry Krischer, was requesting this case be taken to the Grand JUry again. I explained to her I had requested arrest warrants for Jeffrey Epstein, and I . I asked that she either issue the warr Ls Ut direct file, as so much time has elapsed since the original request to the Grand Jury. I explained that the Palm Beach Police Department had concluded the case in December of 2005 and has been waiting for the case to go forward. Belohlavek stated the original offer was again offered to the new defense attorney. She was waiting for their answer by Friday May 19, 2006. She stated she would advise me of the answer.
+
+t\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NAppATIvE # 45 \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Reported By: RECAREY, 6/05/06
+
+### \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 86 ime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+ase No 1-05-000368
+
+Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A.
+
+(Continued)
+
+6/06/06
+
+On May 22, 2006, I received several phone calls throughout the day from Mr.0.0who stated he had been followed aggressively by a private investigator. Mrill.stated that as he drove to and from work and running errands throughout the county, the same vehicle was behind him running other vehicles off the road in an attempt not to lose sight of
+
+I explained to him as Mr\_ Epstein had retained new legal council it was possible it would be new private investigators following him to observe his daily activities. I also explained to him that there was a meeting scheduled with ASA Lana Belohlavek and Attorney Jack Goldberger at Mr. Krischer's office scheduled on June 1, 2006 at 9:00 am. I attempted to call ASA Lana Belohlavek to inform her of the private investigators following Mrh...however; she was on her vacation during the week of May 22 through May 30 2006.
+
+On May 23, 2006, I received other phone calls from Mr. and Mrs.Swho advised they were able to acquire the private investigators license plate information. The subject following them was again driving very aggressively and caused Mrsi at° run off the road. Mrs...stated the vehicle is a Chevy Monte Carlo bearing Florida tag 135-XGA. The vehicle is registered to Zachary Bechard of Jupiter Florida. Bechard is employed with Candor Investigations from Jupiter, Florida. Bechard is a licensed Private Investigator in the State of Florida.
+
+Since the discovery of the threat made against one of the victims in this case OM I requested subpoenas for all calls made to and received from 0111.4111.0during the month of Mardi) 2006 for her cell phone and home phone. I had confirmed with Florida State University the exact dates of Spring Break for 2006. The Spring Break was from March 4, 2006 through March 12, 2006. I received a subpoena from Sprint/Nextel with all calls made during the month of March 2006. I reviewed the 989 calls made and received during the month of March 2006. I observed on March 7, 2006, MS made and received thirty five calls during that day.
+
+Date Time Seconds In/Out To/From 7-Mar-06 11:03 AM 492 Outbound 561XXXX 7-Mar-06 11:16 AM 6 Inbound 561XXXX 7-Mar-06 11:22 AM 887.2 Inbound 561XXXX 7-Mar-06 11:37 AM 48 Outbound 9178553363 7-Mar-06 11:39 AM 28.2 Inbound 2125356831 7-Mar-06 12:02 PM 727.2 Inbound 2125356831
+
+.
+
+### \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ its: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 87 .me: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
+
+, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+.se No • 1-05-000368 (Continued) of call in seconds, inbound or outbound calls and calls made to or from - phone. On March 7, 2006, at 11:03 am, allemade acall to the victim which lasted 492 seconds (8 minutes and 2 seconds). The victim then returned the call at 11:16 am which lasted 6 seconds. The victim then made contact withillebat 11:22 am for 877.2 seconds (14 minutes and 6 seconds). These sequences of calls were consistent with what the victim had described to me on the date of the intimidation. Immediately after speaking with the victim, fl makes a call to , Epstein's assistant, which lasts for forty-eight secon s. A call is then immediately received, a telephone number registered to a Corporation affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein located at 457 Madison Ave in New York. An extensive computer check revealed 457 Madison Ave is abusiness address in which Epstein has his corporations assigned to. Epstein had corporation attorney, Darren Indyke, register the businesses and register himself as an agent. I also observed Epstein has his El Zorro Ranch Corporation, New York Strategy Group, Ghislaine Corporation, J Epstein and Company and the Financial Strategy Group registered to this same address. Finally, a third call is received bye at 12:02 pm from the same corporate number which lasts 12 minutes and 1 second. It should be noted that there is no further contact with either the victim during the month of March or A ril of 2006. I also noted that there was no further contact with or Jeffrey Epstein during the remainder of the mont o Marc or April 2006.
+
+On June 1, 2006, ASA Lana Belohlavek telephoned me to inform me of the meeting that occurred with Atty. Jack Goldberger and her reference this case. She advised she would make her determination pn whether to file on this case or not by Monday June S, 2006.
+
+Inv Continues.
+
+\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*NARRATIvE 446 \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Reported By: RECAREY, 7/12/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 7/12/06
+
+On June 29, 2006, I had spoken to ASA Lana Belohlavic who informed me that the case would be sent to the Grand Jury for charges. She informed me that the grand jury would convene on July 19, 2006 to hear the Epstein case. Belohlavic stated State Attorney Barry Krisher made the determination to go the Grand Jury to hear the case.
+
+On July 12, 2006, I spoke with Mrs. mother of the victim, OPP who inquired about the status of the case. I explained to her that I was told we would be going to the Grand Jury during the week of July 19, 2006. She stated she had not been contacted as of yet by the State Attorney's Office for any information. I provided her with the telephone numbers to the State Attorney's Office.
+
+rnvestigation continues...
+
+Date/Time: 10/16/06 / 9:24:44
+
+System: HTE PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 1
+-----
+System: CHF004P Narrative Print
+
+Case Number: 1-05-000368
+
+\*\*\*\*\* N A R R A T I V E # 47 \*\*\*\*\*
+NA Reported By: RECAREY, [REDACTED] 8/03/06
+Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 8/03/06
+
+On July 18, 2006, I received a Grand Jury letter to appear before the Grand Jury on July 19, 2006, reference the Jeffrey Epstein case. On July 19, 2006, I responded to the Grand Jury Room and testified before the grand jury. At the conclusion, ASA Belohlavec stated the grand jury returned with a true bill for Felony Solicitation of Prostitution.
+
+On July 25, 2006, Epstein turned himself into the county jail and was released on a \$3,000 bond. Epstein is to return for arraignment on August 25, 2006 at 8:45 am.
+
+ATT POLICE CLERKS: Please show this case cleared by arrest with the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein W/M 01-20-1953.
+
+\*\* End of Report \*\*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749497/EFTA02749497.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749497/EFTA02749497.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..11026c3bc165abda7d280ce5f78f3fa412fee957
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749497/EFTA02749497.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,2103 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749497.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 49,
+ "chars": 147252,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 71.12,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_20.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 52.650000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.456,
+ 52.650000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.456,
+ 76.94999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.288,
+ 76.94999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 205.63200000000003,
+ 57.50999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 396.576,
+ 57.50999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 396.576,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 205.63200000000003,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT \nPage: 43 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 28.818374633789062,
+ 58.31999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 571.7776489257812,
+ 58.31999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 571.7776489257812,
+ 85.9342041015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 28.818374633789062,
+ 85.9342041015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 198.89999999999998,
+ 57.50999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.68,
+ 57.50999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.68,
+ 81.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.89999999999998,
+ 81.0
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 45 rime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 28.0831241607666,
+ 54.269999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 574.3192749023438,
+ 54.269999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 574.3192749023438,
+ 81.42919921875
+ ],
+ [
+ 28.0831241607666,
+ 81.42919921875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 58.31999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 393.51599999999996,
+ 58.31999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 393.51599999999996,
+ 82.62
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.124,
+ 82.62
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 54\nime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 22.60940170288086,
+ 55.89000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 562.9373779296875,
+ 55.89000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 562.9373779296875,
+ 81.07586669921875
+ ],
+ [
+ 22.60940170288086,
+ 81.07586669921875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": ")ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT \nrime: 15:01:37 Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 29.4475154876709,
+ 55.08000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 403.6386413574219,
+ 55.08000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 403.6386413574219,
+ 81.034912109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 29.4475154876709,
+ 81.034912109375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 58 \nrime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 24.93000030517578,
+ 55.08000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 571.6029052734375,
+ 55.08000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 571.6029052734375,
+ 81.70416259765625
+ ],
+ [
+ 24.93000030517578,
+ 81.70416259765625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Date: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 62 \nrime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 25.469999313354492,
+ 56.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 572.216796875,
+ 56.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 572.216796875,
+ 83.3331298828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 25.469999313354492,
+ 83.3331298828125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": ")ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT \nPage: 63 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 27.94087028503418,
+ 67.23
+ ],
+ [
+ 573.0756225585938,
+ 67.23
+ ],
+ [
+ 573.0756225585938,
+ 93.785400390625
+ ],
+ [
+ 27.94087028503418,
+ 93.785400390625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 197.06400000000002,
+ 64.80000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.456,
+ 64.80000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.456,
+ 89.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 197.06400000000002,
+ 89.1
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 70\nime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 25.730751037597656,
+ 69.66
+ ],
+ [
+ 565.8919067382812,
+ 69.66
+ ],
+ [
+ 565.8919067382812,
+ 95.2808837890625
+ ],
+ [
+ 25.730751037597656,
+ 95.2808837890625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 33,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 196.452,
+ 64.80000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.00800000000004,
+ 64.80000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.00800000000004,
+ 89.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 196.452,
+ 89.1
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 34,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 61.56
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.68,
+ 61.56
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.68,
+ 85.05
+ ],
+ [
+ 200.73600000000002,
+ 85.05
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 36,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 192.78000000000003,
+ 60.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 386.17199999999997,
+ 60.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 386.17199999999997,
+ 85.85999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 192.78000000000003,
+ 85.85999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 37,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 198.89999999999998,
+ 66.42
+ ],
+ [
+ 392.904,
+ 66.42
+ ],
+ [
+ 392.904,
+ 90.72
+ ],
+ [
+ 198.89999999999998,
+ 90.72
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "'ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT \nIncident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 38,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 25.090312957763672,
+ 68.03999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 567.1862182617188,
+ 68.03999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 567.1862182617188,
+ 90.778076171875
+ ],
+ [
+ 25.090312957763672,
+ 90.778076171875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 79\nime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 39,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 27.550678253173828,
+ 64.80000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 567.708984375,
+ 64.80000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 567.708984375,
+ 90.0296630859375
+ ],
+ [
+ 27.550678253173828,
+ 90.0296630859375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Investigation Continues.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 39,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 50.79600000000001,
+ 294.84000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 224.37844848632812,
+ 294.84000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 224.37844848632812,
+ 307.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 50.79600000000001,
+ 307.79999999999995
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "______________________________________________________________________________ \nate: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 86 \nime: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 46,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 25.790000915527344,
+ 55.0230712890625
+ ],
+ [
+ 570.1921997070312,
+ 55.0230712890625
+ ],
+ [
+ 570.1921997070312,
+ 92.20416259765625
+ ],
+ [
+ 25.790000915527344,
+ 92.20416259765625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "_____________________________________________________________________________ \nits: 7/19/06 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 87\n.me: 15:01:37 Incident Report Program: CMS301L",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 47,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 25.796781539916992,
+ 66.24627685546875
+ ],
+ [
+ 569.8170776367188,
+ 66.24627685546875
+ ],
+ [
+ 569.8170776367188,
+ 96.34844970703125
+ ],
+ [
+ 25.796781539916992,
+ 96.34844970703125
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 41
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 575
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 473
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 532
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 40
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 97
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 594
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 620
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 54
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 91
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 591
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 113
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 555
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 31,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 32,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 33,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 34,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 35,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 36,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 37,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 38,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 561
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 39,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 556
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 64
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 40,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 41,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 103
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 42,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 43,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 44,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 569
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 45,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 108
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 46,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 101
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 47,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 585
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 48,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749497"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749497/_page_0_Picture_20.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749497/_page_0_Picture_20.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a69cc091f5cf46864f441d49e504fc7eafe46ecc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749497/_page_0_Picture_20.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:c75402901ba54fa274ad1b52a53a8c73b2a906559a0ede9d219daea9c93871c3
+size 12409
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/EFTA02749546.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/EFTA02749546.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9043a00170c262ed6f4df545733a9d3aec15788d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/EFTA02749546.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1352 @@
+FOR Jeffrey
+ DATE 4/11/05 TIME 8:08 A.M. P.M.
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF [REDACTED]
+ PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE [REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+ SIGNED [Signature] 1184
+
+### IMPORTANT MESSAGE
+
+FOR Jeffrey
+ DATE 3/31/05 TIME 5:06 A.M. P.M.
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF [REDACTED]
+ PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE [REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+ SIGNED [Signature] 1184
+
+### IMPORTANT MESSAGE
+
+FOR Jeffrey
+ DATE 3/31/05 TIME 3:28 A.M. P.M.
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF [REDACTED]
+ PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE [REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+
+### IMPORTANT MESSAGE
+
+FOR Jeffrey
+ DATE 3/31/05 TIME 2:40 A.M. P.M.
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF [REDACTED]
+ PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE She had [REDACTED]
+[REDACTED] on the phone
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | |
+|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|
+| FOR Teffrey | |
+| DATE 1/27/05 TIME 12:34 A.M. A.M. P.M. | |
+| M. [REDACTED] | |
+| OF _____ | |
+| PHONE/ MOBILE | |
+| TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL | |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+
+MESSAGE She had [REDACTED] on the phone
+
+SIGNED 1184
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | |
+|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|
+| FOR Teffrey | |
+| DATE 1/27/05 TIME 11:40 A.M. A.M. P.M. | |
+| M. [REDACTED] | |
+| OF _____ | |
+| PHONE/ MOBILE | |
+| TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL | |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+
+MESSAGE She had [REDACTED] on the phone again
+
+SIGNED 1184
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | |
+|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|
+| FOR Teffrey | |
+| DATE 1/27/05 TIME _____ A.M. P.M. | |
+| M. [REDACTED] | |
+| OF _____ | |
+| PHONE/ MOBILE | |
+| TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL | |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+
+MESSAGE She had a Question.
+
+SIGNED 1184
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | |
+|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|
+| FOR Teffrey | |
+| DATE 1/27/05 TIME 12:20 A.M. A.M. P.M. | |
+| M. [REDACTED] | |
+| OF _____ | |
+| PHONE/ MOBILE | |
+| TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL | |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+
+MESSAGE That they called you
+
+SIGNED 1184
+
+
+
+FOR Teffrey
+DATE 1/21/05 TIME 6:20 A.M.
+~~CRM~~
+
+M [REDACTED]
+
+OF [REDACTED]
+PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE That he called.
+
+SIGNED AUM
+
+1184
+
+FOR Teffrey
+DATE 1/21/05 TIME 3:55 A.M.
+~~CRM~~
+
+M [REDACTED]
+
+OF [REDACTED]
+PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE [REDACTED]
+
+SIGNED [REDACTED]
+
+1184
+
+IMPORTANT MESSAGE
+
+FOR Teffrey
+DATE 1/21/05 TIME 6:45 A.M.
+~~CRM~~
+
+M [REDACTED]
+
+OF [REDACTED]
+PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE [REDACTED]
+
+IMPORTANT MESSAGE
+
+FOR Teffrey
+DATE 1/21/05 TIME 4:08 A.M.
+~~CRM~~
+
+M [REDACTED]
+
+OF [REDACTED]
+PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE [REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+EXHIBIT
+8
+
+FOR JE
+DATE \_\_\_\_\_ TIME \_\_\_\_\_ A.M. P.M.
+M \_\_\_\_\_
+OF \_\_\_\_\_
+PHONE/
+MOBILE
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+
+SIGNED \_\_\_\_\_
+
+1184
+
+FOR JE
+DATE \_\_\_\_\_ TIME 2:18 A.M. P.M.
+M \_\_\_\_\_
+OF \_\_\_\_\_
+PHONE/
+MOBILE
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+Call his cell phone
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+
+SIGNED \_\_\_\_\_
+
+1184
+
+**IMPORTANT MESSAGE**
+
+FOR Teffrey
+DATE 2/14/05 TIME 1:40 A.M. P.M.
+M \_\_\_\_\_
+OF \_\_\_\_\_
+PHONE/
+MOBILE
+
+| TELEPHONED | 8 | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|----------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+She had \_\_\_\_\_ on the phone
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+
+SIGNED \_\_\_\_\_
+
+1184
+
+**IMPORTANT MESSAGE**
+
+FOR Teffrey
+DATE 2/11/05 TIME 1:50 A.M. P.M.
+M \_\_\_\_\_
+OF \_\_\_\_\_
+PHONE/
+MOBILE
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+She had \_\_\_\_\_ on the phone
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+\_\_\_\_\_
+
+**EXHIBIT**
+9
+
+SIGNED \_\_\_\_\_
+
+1184
+
+FOR Jeffrey
+ DATE 9/18/05 TIME 2:45 AM
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF [REDACTED]
+ PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE [REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+
+SIGNED [REDACTED] 1184
+
+**IMPORTANT MESSAGE**
+
+FOR Jeffrey
+ DATE 3/18/05 TIME 5:13 AM
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF [REDACTED]
+ PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE The had [REDACTED]
+on the phone
+
+SIGNED [REDACTED] 1184
+
+**IMPORTANT MESSAGE**
+
+FOR Jeffrey
+ DATE 3/19/05 TIME 11:50 PM
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF [REDACTED]
+ PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE [REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+
+**IMPORTANT MESSAGE**
+
+FOR Jeffrey
+ DATE 3/19/05 TIME 11:03 AM
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF [REDACTED]
+ PHONE/MOBILE You know it
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE That [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] called.
+
+**EXHIBIT**
+10
+
+FOR Tefticy
+ DATE 4/4/05 TIME 6:21 A.M. P.M.
+ M [Redacted]
+ OF \_\_\_\_\_
+ PHONE/
+ MOBILE
+
+| TELEPHONED | | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE [Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+
+SIGNED [Redacted]
+
+FOR \_\_\_\_\_
+ DATE \_\_\_\_\_ TIME \_\_\_\_\_ A.M. P.M.
+ M \_\_\_\_\_
+ OF \_\_\_\_\_
+ PHONE/
+ MOBILE
+
+| TELEPHONED | | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE [Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted]
+
+SIGNED [Redacted]
+
+1184
+
+**IMPORTANT MESSAGE**
+
+FOR Tefticy
+ DATE 4/4/05 TIME 1:05 A.M. P.M.
+ M [Redacted]
+ OF \_\_\_\_\_
+ PHONE/
+ MOBILE
+
+| TELEPHONED | | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE she is looking
+to speak with o
+you.
+
+**IMPORTANT MESSAGE**
+
+FOR [Redacted] 9:40 A.M. P.M.
+ DATE [Redacted] TIME \_\_\_\_\_
+ M [Redacted]
+ OF \_\_\_\_\_
+ PHONE/
+ MOBILE
+
+| TELEPHONED | | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+
+FOR Jeffrey
+DATE 4/1/05 TIME 2:51 A.M. A.M.
+M [REDACTED]
+OF [REDACTED]
+PHONE/
+MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE Please call
+him back
+
+SIGNED [Signature] 1184
+
+FOR Jeffrey
+DATE [REDACTED] TIME [REDACTED] A.M.
+M [REDACTED]
+OF [REDACTED]
+PHONE/
+MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE [REDACTED]
+
+SIGNED [Signature] 1184
+
+**IMPORTANT MESSAGE**
+
+FOR Jeffrey
+DATE 4/1/05 TIME 3:41 A.M. A.M.
+M [REDACTED]
+OF [REDACTED]
+PHONE/
+MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE [REDACTED]
+
+**IMPORTANT MESSAGE**
+
+FOR OE
+DATE [REDACTED] TIME 2:40 A.M. A.M.
+M [REDACTED]
+OF [REDACTED]
+PHONE/
+MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE [REDACTED]
+
+**EXHIBIT**
+12
+
+
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | | |
+|--------------------|-------------------|-----------------|
+| FOR | Mr. J.E. | |
+| DATE | 12/04/09 | TIME 2:20 AM AM |
+| M | [REDACTED] | |
+| OF | [REDACTED] | |
+| PHONE/ MOBILE | [REDACTED] | |
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL | |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+ Please call
+ him
+ [Signature]
+ SIGNED 1184
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | | |
+|--------------------|-------------------|--------------------|
+| FOR | Mr. J.E. | |
+| DATE | 12/04/09 | TIME 4:20 AM AM AM |
+| M | [REDACTED] | |
+| OF | [REDACTED] | |
+| PHONE/ MOBILE | [REDACTED] | |
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL | |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+ [REDACTED]
+ [Signature]
+ SIGNED 1184
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | | |
+|--------------------|-------------------|-----------------|
+| FOR | Mr. J.E. | |
+| DATE | 12/04/09 | TIME 5:30 AM AM |
+| M | [REDACTED] | |
+| OF | [REDACTED] | |
+| PHONE/ MOBILE | [REDACTED] | |
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL | |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+ Please call her
+ [Signature]
+ SIGNED 1184
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | | |
+|--------------------|-------------------|--------------------|
+| FOR | Mr. J.E. | |
+| DATE | 12/04/09 | TIME 5:40 AM AM AM |
+| M | [REDACTED] | |
+| OF | [REDACTED] | |
+| PHONE/ MOBILE | [REDACTED] | |
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL | |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+ Please call her
+ [Signature]
+ SIGNED 1184
+
+**EXHIBIT**
+**13**
+
+
+
+17
+
+### IMPORTANT MESSAGE
+
+| FOR _____ | TIME _____ | A.M. P.M. _____ |
+|--------------------------|-------------------------|-----------------|
+| DATE _____ | _____ | _____ |
+| M _____ | _____ | _____ |
+| OF _____ | _____ | _____ |
+| PHONE/ MOBILE _____ | _____ | _____ |
+| TELEPHONED _____ | PLEASE CALL _____ | _____ |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU _____ | WILL CALL AGAIN _____ | _____ |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU _____ | RUSH _____ | _____ |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL _____ | SPECIAL ATTENTION _____ | _____ |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+SIGNED \_\_\_\_\_ 1184
+
+### IMPORTANT MESSAGE
+
+| FOR _____ | TIME 7:30 A.M. P.M. _____ | |
+|--------------------------|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
+| DATE _____ | _____ | |
+| M OE _____ | _____ | |
+| OF _____ | _____ | |
+| PHONE/ MOBILE _____ | _____ | |
+| TELEPHONED _____ | PLEASE CALL _____ | |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU _____ | WILL CALL AGAIN _____ | _____ |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU _____ | RUSH _____ | _____ |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL _____ | SPECIAL ATTENTION _____ | _____ |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+SIGNED \_\_\_\_\_ 1184
+
+### IMPORTANT MESSAGE
+
+| FOR _____ | TIME _____ | A.M. P.M. _____ |
+|--------------------------|-------------------------|-----------------|
+| DATE _____ | _____ | _____ |
+| M _____ | _____ | _____ |
+| OF _____ | _____ | _____ |
+| PHONE/ MOBILE _____ | _____ | _____ |
+| TELEPHONED _____ | PLEASE CALL _____ | _____ |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU _____ | WILL CALL AGAIN _____ | _____ |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU _____ | RUSH _____ | _____ |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL _____ | SPECIAL ATTENTION _____ | _____ |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+SIGNED \_\_\_\_\_ 1184
+
+### IMPORTANT MESSAGE
+
+| FOR _____ | TIME 1:28 A.M. P.M. _____ | |
+|--------------------------|----------------------------------|-------|
+| DATE _____ | _____ | |
+| M _____ | _____ | |
+| OF _____ | _____ | |
+| PHONE/ MOBILE _____ | _____ | |
+| TELEPHONED _____ | PLEASE CALL _____ | _____ |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU _____ | WILL CALL AGAIN _____ | _____ |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU _____ | RUSH _____ | _____ |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL _____ | SPECIAL ATTENTION _____ | _____ |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+SIGNED \_\_\_\_\_ 1184
+
+### EXHIBIT
+
+15
+
+FOR SARAH
+ DATE 12/9/04 TIME 10:20 A.M. P.M.
+ M \_\_\_\_\_
+ OF \_\_\_\_\_
+ PHONE/
+ MOBILE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+\_\_\_\_\_
+
+\_\_\_\_\_
+
+\_\_\_\_\_
+
+SIGNED \_\_\_\_\_
+
+1184
+
+FOR M. J. E.
+ DATE 12/9/04 TIME 5:00 A.M. P.M.
+ M Y \_\_\_\_\_
+ OF \_\_\_\_\_
+ PHONE/
+ MOBILE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+Please Call him
+
+SIGNED \_\_\_\_\_
+
+1184
+
+**IMPORTANT MESSAGE**
+
+FOR Mr. J.E.
+ DATE 12/09/04 TIME 8:30 A.M. P.M.
+ M \_\_\_\_\_
+
+OF \_\_\_\_\_
+ PHONE/
+ MOBILE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+"Tell him that I
+
+Called"
+
+SIGNED \_\_\_\_\_
+
+1184
+
+**IMPORTANT MESSAGE**
+
+FOR Mr. J.E.
+ DATE 12/09/04 TIME 8:00 A.M. P.M.
+ M PS \_\_\_\_\_
+
+OF \_\_\_\_\_
+ PHONE/
+ MOBILE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+\_\_\_\_\_
+
+\_\_\_\_\_
+
+**EXHIBIT**
+
+16
+
+SIGNED \_\_\_\_\_
+
+**EXHIBIT**
+16
+
+ST-1514 Doc. 1
+
+SCIT 001
+
+17
+
+### IMPORTANT MESSAGE
+
+FOR M. J. E.
+
+DATE TIME 3:50 AM (PM)
+
+M
+
+OF
+
+PHONE/MOBILE
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL | |
+|--------------------|-------------------|--|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+
+MESSAGE
+
+
+
+SIGNED [Signature] 1184
+
+17
+
+### IMPORTANT MESSAGE
+
+FOR Jeffrey
+
+DATE 01/09/05 TIME 1:00 A
+
+M
+
+OF
+
+PHONE/MOBILE
+
+| TELEPHONED | X | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|---|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE
+
+
+
+SIGNED
+
+17
+
+### IMPORTANT MESSAGE
+
+FOR J.E.
+
+DATE 11/9/05 TIME 3:37 AM (PM)
+
+M
+
+OF
+
+PHONE/MOBILE
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL | |
+|--------------------|-------------------|--|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+
+MESSAGE
+
+
+
+SIGNED [Signature] 1184
+
+17
+
+### IMPORTANT MESSAGE
+
+FOR Jeffrey
+
+DATE 01/09/05 TIME 01:30 A
+
+M
+
+OF
+
+PHONE/MOBILE
+
+| TELEPHONED | X | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|---|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE
+
+
+
+SIGNED [Signature] 1184
+
+
+
+17
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | |
+|-------------------|------------------|
+| FOR | J.E. |
+| DATE | 1/27/01 |
+| TIME | 6:00 A.M. (P.M.) |
+| M.Y. | [REDACTED] |
+| OF | [REDACTED] |
+| PHONEX | [REDACTED] |
+| MOBILE | [REDACTED] |
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE [REDACTED]
+
+*Kn* [REDACTED]
+
+*k* [REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+SIGNED [Signature]
+
+118
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | | | |
+|--------------------|------------|-------------------|------------------|
+| FOR | J.E. | | |
+| DATE | 1/22/05 | TIME | 7:30 A.M. (P.M.) |
+| M.Y. | [REDACTED] | | |
+| OF | [REDACTED] | | |
+| PHONE/ MOBILE | [REDACTED] | | |
+| TELEPHONED | | PLEASE CALL | |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | | WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | | RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | | SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+
+MESSAGE [REDACTED]
+
+SIGNED [Signature]
+
+118
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | |
+|------------------------|------------------------------|
+| FOR J.E. | |
+| DATE 1/22/05 | TIME 2:05 A.M. (P.M.) |
+| M _____ | |
+| OF _____ | |
+| PHONE/ MOBILE _____ | |
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+| MESSAGE _____ | |
+| _____ | |
+| _____ | |
+| _____ | |
+| _____ | |
+| _____ | |
+| _____ | |
+| _____ | |
+| _____ | |
+| SIGNED _____ | [Signature] |
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | | | |
+|---------------------------------------------|--|-------------------|--|
+| FOR _____ | | | |
+| DATE _____ TIME _____ A.M. _____ P.M. _____ | | | |
+| M _____ | | | |
+| OF _____ | | | |
+| PHONE/ MOBILE _____ | | | |
+| TELEPHONED | | PLEASE CALL | |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | | WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | | RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | | SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+
+| FOR | IMPORTANT MESSX€E |
+|-----------------------|----------------------|
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL ka |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | ll SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+| DATE OF PHONE! MOBILE | TIME A. |
+
+| FOR DATE OF PHONE/ MOBILE_ | IMPORTANT MESSAGE |
+|------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS. TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL MESSAGE SIGNED_ | SPECIAL ATTENTION _ PLAINTIFFS: EXHIBIT |
+
+| FOR DATE M OF PHONE/ MOBILE | IMPORTANT MESSAGE TIME |
+|-----------------------------|------------------------|
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | d SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+| SIGNED | II |
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE I | I |
+|---------------------|------------------|
+| FOR | GP_ |
+| DATE o 25 os- | TIME aa |
+| A I | |
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIALATTENTION |
+| SIGNED ens? | HE |
+
+FOR JE
+ DATE 1/25/05 TIME 6:57 AM (P.M.)
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF [REDACTED]
+ PHONE MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+"Jan Posturnity hir
+ Cell"
+
+SIGNED [Signature] 1184
+
+FOR JE
+ DATE 1/25/05 TIME 7:15 AM (P.M.)
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF [REDACTED]
+ PHONE MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+ SIGNED [Signature] 1184
+
+**IMPORTANT MESSAGE**
+
+FOR JE
+ DATE 1/26/05 TIME 1:20 AM (P.M.)
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF \_\_\_\_\_
+ PHONE/MOBILE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+ SIGNED [Signature] 1184
+
+**IMPORTANT MESSAGE**
+
+FOR J.E.
+ DATE 1/26/05 TIME 6:40 AM (P.M.)
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF \_\_\_\_\_
+ PHONE/MOBILE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE \_\_\_\_\_
+
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+ SIGNED [Signature]
+
+**PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT**
+ 20
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | | |
+|---------------------------------|-------------------|------------------|
+| FOR Mr. J.E. | | |
+| DATE 1/29/05 | TIME 10:00 | A.M. P.M. |
+| M [REDACTED] | | |
+| OF [REDACTED] | | |
+| PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED] | | |
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL | |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+| MESSAGE Please call her. | | |
+| SIGNED [Signature] | | |
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | | |
+|--------------------------------|-------------------|------------------|
+| FOR Mr. J.E. | | |
+| DATE 1/29/05 | TIME 10:10 | A.M. P.M. |
+| M [REDACTED] | | |
+| OF [REDACTED] | | |
+| PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED] | | |
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL | |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+| MESSAGE [REDACTED] | | |
+| SIGNED [Signature] | | |
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | | |
+|-------------------------------------|-------------------|------------------|
+| FOR J.E. | | |
+| DATE 1/29/05 | TIME 9:00 | A.M. P.M. |
+| M [REDACTED] | | |
+| OF [REDACTED] | | |
+| PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED] | | |
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL | |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+| MESSAGE Please call her back | | |
+| SIGNED [Signature] | | |
+
+PLAINTIFF'S
+EXHIBIT
+21
+
+| IMPORTANT MESSAGE | | |
+|--------------------------------|-------------------|------------------|
+| FOR J.E. | | |
+| DATE 1/29/05 | TIME 4:10 | A.M. P.M. |
+| M [REDACTED] | | |
+| OF [REDACTED] | | |
+| PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED] | | |
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL | |
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN | |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH | |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION | |
+| MESSAGE [REDACTED] | | |
+| SIGNED [Signature] | | |
+
+FOR J.E.
+ DATE 2/16/05 TIME 4:35 A.M. P.M.
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF [REDACTED]
+ PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE
+NO MESSAGE
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+
+SIGNED J.E. 1184
+
+FOR J.E.
+ DATE 2/15/05 TIME 12:35 A.M. P.M.
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF [REDACTED]
+ PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | X PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+
+SIGNED J.B. 1184
+
+**IMPORTANT MESSAGE**
+
+FOR Jeffrey
+ DATE 02/15/05 TIME 01:20 A.M. P.M.
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF [REDACTED]
+ PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+
+SIGNED J.B. 1184
+
+**IMPORTANT MESSAGE**
+
+FOR J.E.
+ DATE 2/15/05 TIME 5:35 A.M. P.M.
+ M [REDACTED]
+ OF [REDACTED]
+ PHONE/MOBILE [REDACTED]
+
+| TELEPHONED | PLEASE CALL |
+|--------------------|-------------------|
+| CAME TO SEE YOU | WILL CALL AGAIN |
+| WANTS TO SEE YOU | RUSH |
+| RETURNED YOUR CALL | SPECIAL ATTENTION |
+
+MESSAGE
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+ \_\_\_\_\_
+
+**PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT**
+22
+
+SIGNED J.B. 1184
+
+
+
+SERIAL 1001
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/EFTA02749546.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/EFTA02749546.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b3100bd41d594e78dd974c66ca0f3932d46d611b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/EFTA02749546.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1481 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 17,
+ "chars": 37623,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 217.07,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_2_Picture_7.jpeg",
+ "_page_7_Picture_7.jpeg",
+ "_page_9_Picture_57.jpeg",
+ "_page_11_Picture_39.jpeg",
+ "_page_16_Picture_68.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 75.888,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 273.564,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 273.564,
+ 85.05
+ ],
+ [
+ 75.888,
+ 85.05
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 341.49600000000004,
+ 68.85000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.62,
+ 68.85000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.62,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 341.49600000000004,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 75.888,
+ 456.8399999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 273.564,
+ 456.8399999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 273.564,
+ 472.23
+ ],
+ [
+ 75.888,
+ 472.23
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 341.49600000000004,
+ 455.22
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.62,
+ 455.22
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.62,
+ 470.6099999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 341.49600000000004,
+ 470.6099999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 76.5,
+ 44.55
+ ],
+ [
+ 275.4,
+ 44.55
+ ],
+ [
+ 275.4,
+ 60.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 76.5,
+ 60.75
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 339.66,
+ 36.45
+ ],
+ [
+ 544.6800000000001,
+ 36.45
+ ],
+ [
+ 544.6800000000001,
+ 56.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 339.66,
+ 56.7
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 82.62,
+ 429.29999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 429.29999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 449.55000000000007
+ ],
+ [
+ 82.62,
+ 449.55000000000007
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 345.78,
+ 425.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 550.8,
+ 425.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 550.8,
+ 445.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 345.78,
+ 445.5
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 77.724,
+ 41.31
+ ],
+ [
+ 277.848,
+ 41.31
+ ],
+ [
+ 277.848,
+ 56.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 77.724,
+ 56.7
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 342.72,
+ 41.31
+ ],
+ [
+ 545.292,
+ 41.31
+ ],
+ [
+ 545.292,
+ 56.7
+ ],
+ [
+ 342.72,
+ 56.7
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 77.724,
+ 429.29999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 275.4,
+ 429.29999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 275.4,
+ 445.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 77.724,
+ 445.5
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 340.884,
+ 429.29999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 542.232,
+ 429.29999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 542.232,
+ 445.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 340.884,
+ 445.5
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 72.216,
+ 69.66
+ ],
+ [
+ 269.28000000000003,
+ 69.66
+ ],
+ [
+ 269.28000000000003,
+ 85.05
+ ],
+ [
+ 72.216,
+ 85.05
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 336.6,
+ 69.66
+ ],
+ [
+ 538.5600000000001,
+ 69.66
+ ],
+ [
+ 538.5600000000001,
+ 85.05
+ ],
+ [
+ 336.6,
+ 85.05
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 72.216,
+ 457.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 269.28000000000003,
+ 457.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 269.28000000000003,
+ 473.84999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 72.216,
+ 473.84999999999997
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 336.6,
+ 457.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 538.5600000000001,
+ 457.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 538.5600000000001,
+ 473.84999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 336.6,
+ 473.84999999999997
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 80.172,
+ 47.79
+ ],
+ [
+ 274.788,
+ 47.79
+ ],
+ [
+ 274.788,
+ 65.61
+ ],
+ [
+ 80.172,
+ 65.61
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 342.10800000000006,
+ 43.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 544.6800000000001,
+ 43.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 544.6800000000001,
+ 60.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 342.10800000000006,
+ 60.75
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 82.00800000000001,
+ 435.7800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 277.848,
+ 435.7800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 277.848,
+ 453.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 82.00800000000001,
+ 453.6
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 345.16799999999995,
+ 431.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 548.352,
+ 431.73
+ ],
+ [
+ 548.352,
+ 448.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 345.16799999999995,
+ 448.74
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 84.456,
+ 43.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 280.296,
+ 43.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 280.296,
+ 59.129999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 84.456,
+ 59.129999999999995
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 345.78,
+ 43.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.74,
+ 43.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.74,
+ 59.129999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 345.78,
+ 59.129999999999995
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 84.456,
+ 433.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 280.296,
+ 433.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 280.296,
+ 449.55000000000007
+ ],
+ [
+ 84.456,
+ 449.55000000000007
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 345.78,
+ 433.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.74,
+ 433.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 547.74,
+ 449.55000000000007
+ ],
+ [
+ 345.78,
+ 449.55000000000007
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 114.44400000000002,
+ 32.400000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 310.896,
+ 32.400000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 310.896,
+ 47.79
+ ],
+ [
+ 114.44400000000002,
+ 47.79
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 377.604,
+ 29.97
+ ],
+ [
+ 581.4,
+ 29.97
+ ],
+ [
+ 581.4,
+ 46.17
+ ],
+ [
+ 377.604,
+ 46.17
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 115.66799999999999,
+ 419.58000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 312.73199999999997,
+ 419.58000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 312.73199999999997,
+ 434.15999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 115.66799999999999,
+ 434.15999999999997
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 377.604,
+ 417.96
+ ],
+ [
+ 583.848,
+ 417.96
+ ],
+ [
+ 583.848,
+ 432.54
+ ],
+ [
+ 377.604,
+ 432.54
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 100.98000000000002,
+ 29.97
+ ],
+ [
+ 296.20799999999997,
+ 29.97
+ ],
+ [
+ 296.20799999999997,
+ 46.980000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 100.98000000000002,
+ 46.980000000000004
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 364.14,
+ 28.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 566.1,
+ 28.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 566.1,
+ 44.55
+ ],
+ [
+ 364.14,
+ 44.55
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 100.98000000000002,
+ 417.15000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 296.82,
+ 417.15000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 296.82,
+ 433.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 100.98000000000002,
+ 433.35
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 364.14,
+ 417.15000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 566.1,
+ 417.15000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 566.1,
+ 433.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 364.14,
+ 433.35
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 119.34,
+ 28.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 315.18,
+ 28.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 315.18,
+ 44.55
+ ],
+ [
+ 119.34,
+ 44.55
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 382.5,
+ 32.400000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 584.46,
+ 32.400000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 584.46,
+ 48.599999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 382.5,
+ 48.599999999999994
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 113.22,
+ 417.15000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 309.06,
+ 417.15000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 309.06,
+ 433.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 113.22,
+ 433.35
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IMPORTANT MESSAGE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 376.38,
+ 417.15000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 578.34,
+ 417.15000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 578.34,
+ 433.35
+ ],
+ [
+ 376.38,
+ 433.35
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 249
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 60
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 109
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 230
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 126
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 40
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749546"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/_page_11_Picture_39.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/_page_11_Picture_39.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6df7a1c94eb6a1d10bfc84f51b4486ddaf3b99ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/_page_11_Picture_39.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:c3d77dc6cf7cb2333695334e9eb7feea089681a6e6883717106e4f6bd4aa17b0
+size 8358
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/_page_16_Picture_68.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/_page_16_Picture_68.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4279be64948f65a410cd95685af564b426529c91
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/_page_16_Picture_68.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:15e3522730c7646b8ecdcf536296efd5d4bf742faf7bf7493a3e743fba354fb7
+size 31442
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/_page_2_Picture_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/_page_2_Picture_7.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dab4645b4034b260deb90e361c61eb2d1ef788b2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/_page_2_Picture_7.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:40087843e2467f00efe855c51783b6356709c5996e4b47e35dbc354e2d9658f8
+size 31642
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/_page_7_Picture_7.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/_page_7_Picture_7.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1ff1c76a0fd5bbb41821a6983eadec6d59223141
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/_page_7_Picture_7.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:e8d477881b2845849dadb752b7d24b38c0882da0c1842a63465f0be5a2ef8291
+size 30972
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/_page_9_Picture_57.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/_page_9_Picture_57.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d88f55aaa88ef20f02a0b1a2b1e3b4827a1b085
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749546/_page_9_Picture_57.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:589a09d6b6763eb73228c8c86b0b6ef6417a27e7278efe1fcc1e60c4b670cd11
+size 34998
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749563/EFTA02749563.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749563/EFTA02749563.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..87c4e077bd8a28db41fe6181e9880a1e72c8114c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749563/EFTA02749563.md
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+Case No. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/IIIIIII
+
+JANE DOE,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.,
+
+Defendants.
+
+L.OPV
+
+DEPOSITION OF Volume 1 of 1 Pages 1 through 138 Videotaped
+
+Monday, March 15, 2010 10:13 a.m. - 12:42 p.m. U.S. Legal Support 515 East Las Olas Boulevard, 3rd Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+
+> Stenographically Reported By: Janet L. McKinney, RPR, FPR, CLR Registered Professional Reporter Florida Professional Reporter Certified LiveNote Reporter
+
+
+
+pport 933
+
+search warrant was imminent?
+
+A. I refuse to answer.
+
+Q. Did you ever question when you were directed to take these computers from his home?
+
+A. I refuse to answer.
+
+Q. How much additional money or bonus were you paid to take the computers that we're talking about out of Jeffrey Epstein's house?
+
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+A. I refuse to answer.
+
+Q. Would those computers reveal criminal activity of only Jeffrey Epstein or of others?
+
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+A. I refuse to answer.
+
+Q. Did you talk with about the criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and others?
+
+A. I refuse to answer.
+
+Q. Well, at some point in time what's been marked as Defense Exhibit 1, you received a Grand Jury investigation target letter, correct?
+
+A. I refuse to answer.
+
+Q• Well, we have it right here. I'm familiar with it. I know you got the letter and I know that, you know, the substance of it you're not going to tell me about. But this letter is dated August 31st, 2007,
+
+Do you know what that message means?
+
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+A. I refuse to answer.
+
+Q. What is this?
+
+There's another message from 9/11/05 saying "I got a car for," and then the name is blotted out. The State Attorney's Office blotted the names of minors out sometimes in their file. So do you do you know - can you fill in that blank?
+
+A. I refuse to answer.
+
+Q. Do you know if this was the car that he rented for Jane Doe 4?
+
+A. I refuse to answer.
+
+Q. All right. Or the car that he rented for AH?
+
+A. I refuse to answer.
+
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+Q. You're familiar with both of those people, right?
+
+A. I refuse to answer.
+
+Q. In fact, AH was somebody that was over at Jeffrey Epstein's house many times, correct?
+
+A. I refuse to answer.
+
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+Q. 9/3/2005. Message from Adriana saying "I left message for Ashley to confirm for 11 a.m. and Vanessa
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749563/EFTA02749563.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749563/EFTA02749563.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6de09ee01268786bc07eabefe25d22f3a1ca353
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749563/EFTA02749563.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749563.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 2369,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.21,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_13.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 241.74,
+ 79.38
+ ],
+ [
+ 454.37847900390625,
+ 79.38
+ ],
+ [
+ 454.37847900390625,
+ 106.213134765625
+ ],
+ [
+ 241.74,
+ 106.213134765625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 110
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 107
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 54
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749563"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749563/_page_0_Picture_13.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749563/_page_0_Picture_13.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..03e62b93fcd767193951a4e7642095d8edac918a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749563/_page_0_Picture_13.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:c5f100e2034e74cc4aa64ab8b5ce1d7fa769ad105f8e82b436b7c76cdedc8591
+size 10644
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749566/EFTA02749566.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749566/EFTA02749566.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3bb5c9af0732e308aa861d8552cb138ad0735461
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749566/EFTA02749566.md
@@ -0,0 +1,305 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08 -CIV-80119-MARRA/IIIIIII
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+-vs-
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+VOLUME I OF II
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994
+
+08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469
+
+09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+DEPOSITION OF DETECTIVE RECAREY
+
+Friday, March 19, 2010
+
+9:37 - 5:12 p.m.
+
+250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+
+Reported By:
+
+Cynthia , RPR, FPR
+
+Notary Public, State of Florida
+
+Prose Court Reporting
+
+Job No.: 1509
+
+newt which was inputted by Nickie Altomaro.
+
+okay. Can you describe for us the process the information is generally taken down at jejsartment back in 2005, and how it makes it e incident report?
+
+fickle Ahomaro was the detective bureau As we update the incident report, you type r eport. And at this time we were using a DOS
+
+okay. DOS as opposed to Windowshased?
+
+7A• Yes.
+
+Gotcha.
+
+A. And we would type up the report, forward it to ".4fe',,bet" L either in Word Document or WordPerfect. She would if,:cxenrert the document into aDOS format and input it into ?ffilre sYslent
+
+")- Q. All right. If we tum to — it looks like t hese are in, somewhat in date order. If we turn to ,3/21/05 which is on the eighth page. Did you get to the date of 3/21/05?
+
+A. Yes.
+
+Q. Okay. Was surveillance instituted on Mr. Epstein's home at this time?
+
+A. Correct.
+
+Q. All right. So we're talking March 2Ist,
+
+2005, surveillance began at his home on El Brill° 2 Way; is that correct?
+
+3 MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+THE WITNESS: Correct.
+
+S BY MR. KUVIN:
+
+6 Q. And on that exact date of 3/21/05 what else took place?
+
+8 MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+9 THE WITNESS: Officer Pagan requested and IB Detective Lee initiated trash pulls from 358 1 El Brillo.
+
+2 BY MR. KUVIN:
+
+3 Q. Can you describe to us what atrash pull I is? What do you do?
+
+15 A. Well, you inform the supervisor of sanitation 16 that you're interested in pulling your target's trash, 7 you find the location, who in turn informs the driver 8 that you're going to be pulling the trash.
+
+9 Q. The driver of the trash truck?
+
+A. The driver the trash truck.
+
+1 Q. Gotcha.
+
+22 A. Once that's done, we coordinate with the trash 3 truck driver to ensure that the well is empty prior to 4 him going to your target location. He goes -- we follow 25 him to the target location.
+
+1 2 Q. The well being the back of the trash truck?
+
+3 A. Correct
+
+4 Q. Before it goes into the main bin?
+
+5 A. Correct.
+
+6 Q. Gotcha. Okay.
+
+7 8 9 10 11 A. Once that area is, we're confirmed that it is empty, they go onto the property, remove the trash and place it into the well. We then follow it to an unspecified location where we actually remove the contents from the well.
+
+12 13 14 15 Q. All right. Let's walk through now, continue tuning to the date of 4/1/05 through 4/3/05. You should be an additional three pages down.
+
+16 A. 4/1.
+
+17 18 19
+
+20 21 THE WITNESS: She met with Detective Krauel of the police department.
+
+Q. Yes, sir. All right. If we look at 4/1 through 4/3/05, what was occurring on those dates?
+
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+BY MR. KUVIN:
+
+Q. Was there any additional surveillance conducted?
+
+A. Yes.
+
+1 Q. Okay. And what were the dates of the 2 surveillance?
+
+3 A. It appears she met with members of the B.S.F. 4 Unit, Burglary Strike Force is what it was, for the 5 purpose of conducting surveillance at 358 El Brillo.
+
+6 Q. Okay. Now, this surveillance, was this 7 kept by the department?
+
+8 A. Correct.
+
+9 Q. Still held by the department?
+
+10 A. Not 100 percent certain on that It might 11 have gone over to the FBI.
+
+12 Q. Okay. We'll talk about that when we get 13 to that point. But nonetheless before the FBI came
+
+14 in, all of this was kept by the department?
+
+15 A. Correct.
+
+16 Q. By your department. Okay. All right. If 17 we look at the bottom of the page, what's the date 18 that the trash pull was actually done?
+
+19 MR. NICE: Form.
+
+20 THE WITNESS: On the bottom of the page?
+
+21 BY MR. KUVIN:
+
+22 Q. Yeah, the one we were talking about.
+
+23 A. IM still looking at Exhibit 3.
+
+24 Q. Yep.
+
+25 A. So, it would be —
+
+the phone call; is that correct?
+
+A. Correct.
+
+Q. Why?
+
+A. She was unable to maintain her composure to talk to me.
+
+Q. Did you make arrangements to meet with her?
+
+A. Correct.
+
+You then meet up with her? Q.
+
+A. Correct.
+
+Where do you meet her? Q.
+
+A. At a park in Jacksonville.
+
+Q. Is she with someone at the time?
+
+A. Yes.
+
+Q. Who was she with?
+
+A. She was with a female friend.
+
+Q. Does she describe for you her history with Mr. Epstein?
+
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+THE WITNESS: Yes.
+
+BY MR. KUVIN:
+
+. Now does she talk to you at all about when you met with her in person?
+
+A. Yes, she did.
+
+Q. Okay. And was that particular meeting in
+
+3Y MR. KUVIN:
+
+Q. Okay. And what does she describe occurs her, Mr. Epstein, if
+
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+THE WITNESS:
+
+,
+
+'WM
+
+BY MR. KUVIN:
+
+Q. SS
+
+A. Yes.
+
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+BY MR. KUVIN:
+
+Q. What does she state about that?
+
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+THE WITNESS:
+
+BY MR KUVIN:
+
+Amos
+
+Q. All right. At some point you have to stop
+
+1 Jacksonville tape recorded?
+
+2 A. Yes.
+
+3 Q. Okay. So one of the tapes that is 4 currently in the possession of the FBI would include 5 that interview?
+
+A. Correct.
+
+Q. Okay. Was she still emotional during the interview in Jacksonville —
+
+MR. PIKE: Objection.
+
+BY MR. KUVIN:
+
+Q. — about the incidents that occurred?
+
+A. At limes she would get emotional and start to cry.
+
+Q. Okay. If we go down to Page 40 in your report — first let me back up. When you meet with her, do you take notes?
+
+A. Yes.
+
+Q. And do you record those notes into the report itself in a timely manner?
+
+A. Yes.
+
+Q. If we look at the bottom of Page 40, does she recount to you anything with respect to Nadia
+
+Marcincova and how Epstein and her may have met?
+
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+THE WITNESS: IMMIUMMIMMilliall
+
+BY MR. KUVIN:
+
+Q. Okay. All right. Let's tum to Page 41.
+
+Now, she recounts to you, or does she recount to ou whether she has actually seen
+
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+THE W1TNESSAININSINS
+
+BY MR. KUVIN:
+
+Q•
+
+A. Oa
+
+MR PIKE: Form.
+
+BY MR. KUVIN:
+
+Q.
+
+THE WITNESS: ail lla
+
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+BY MR. KUVIN:
+
+Q. All right. And when she's discussing this with you, is she also, is she in an emotional state, upset, distraught about it at all?
+
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+
+THE WITNESS: Like I said, during the
+
+interview as we were getting more and more information, she would get upset. We would
+
+stop. Allowed her to regain her composure and
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749566/EFTA02749566.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749566/EFTA02749566.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eec09c742a51792c33da7edb803ad5424ded5a8e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749566/EFTA02749566.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749566.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 6768,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 4.62,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.856,
+ 54.269999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 438.81951904296875,
+ 54.269999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 438.81951904296875,
+ 84.96209716796875
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.856,
+ 84.96209716796875
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 881
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 126
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 60
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 302
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 149
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 81
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 5
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749566"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749569/EFTA02749569.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749569/EFTA02749569.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7cb6291974a7d636979b745d996170d116e18003
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749569/EFTA02749569.md
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+## AFFIDAVIT OF JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
+
+BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority personally appeared having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says:
+
+1. I, Jack A. Goldberger, have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida since 1978. I am a partner with the law firm of Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., located at One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400, 250 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401.
+
+2. My practice includes and specializes in the defense of criminal matters. I am board certified in criminal law. I have been and currently am the criminal defense attorney for JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
+
+3. With regard to the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office file conceming Jeffrey Epstein, after I filed My Demand for Discovery, I personally hand selected documents from that file and, therefore, same are my work product. The Palm Beach State Attorney's Office did not produce any evidence or the like directly to me. Again, the information was personally selected by me and does not ctnstitute the entire file. Therefore, the information is highly protected, opinion, work-product.
+
+FURTHER THE AFFIANT S AUG
+
+ack A. Goldberger, Esq.
+
+
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA
+COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
+
+I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above named person: \_\_\_\_\_, and that an oath was/was not taken.
+
+WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 9th day of February, 2010.
+
+(SEAL)
+
+
+
+Sheryl L. Mahony
+PRINT NAME: Jul Z Mahony
+NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA
+COMMISSION NO.: 00519800
+MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 5/28/10
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749569/EFTA02749569.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749569/EFTA02749569.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6f8913a180a01c47a26be6d16ec1ca87f15d32d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749569/EFTA02749569.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749569.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 2091,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 4.17,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_10.jpeg",
+ "_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "AFFIDAVIT OF JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 166.96031188964844,
+ 85.85999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 443.70000000000005,
+ 85.85999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 443.70000000000005,
+ 101.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 166.96031188964844,
+ 101.25
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 99.144,
+ 141.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 247.24800000000005,
+ 141.75
+ ],
+ [
+ 247.24800000000005,
+ 168.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 99.144,
+ 168.48
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 246
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749569"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749569/_page_0_Picture_10.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749569/_page_0_Picture_10.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ded7f86a626e8898f9c000afbcb162f53ccce64
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749569/_page_0_Picture_10.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:ffcc6e1ca5ec3f02b69b9c87cde0a18194c1bff1af0d77a7d9fcc550453d21ce
+size 11864
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749569/_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749569/_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..29100e1748fa3078acf8256ce81f5d700c52bd78
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749569/_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:925ea93e059cabeae5abf5c338afbeb0bd4a45008960ea2c6230c0daa00c55fd
+size 17847
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749571/EFTA02749571.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749571/EFTA02749571.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f4c3408616fd27c065bb1e4fae62489b42eb357
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749571/EFTA02749571.md
@@ -0,0 +1,428 @@
+IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
+FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
+PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.201
+CASE NO.
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+50 2009 CA O 4 0300 XXXX NB
+
+v.
+
+AS
+
+SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually,
+[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], individually, and
+L.M., individually,
+
+Defendants.
+
+COMPLAINT
+
+COPY
+RECEIVED FOR FILING
+DEC 07 2009
+
+SHATTON M. BOCK
+CLERK & COMPTROLLER
+CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
+
+Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], individually, and L.M., individually. Accordingly, EPSTEIN states:
+
+SUMMARY OF ACTION
+
+Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees at the firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler, P.A. for personal greed and enrichment, in betrayal of the ethical, legal and fiduciary duties to their own clients and professional obligations to the administration of justice, deliberately engaged in a pattern of racketeering that involved a staggering series of gravely serious obstructions of justice, actionable frauds, and the orchestration and conducting of egregious civil litigation abuses that resulted in profoundly serious injury to Jeffrey Epstein one of several targets of their misconduct
+
+
+
+Epstein v. RRA, et al.
+
+Page 2
+
+and others. Rothstein and RRA's fraud had no boundary; Rothstein and his coconspirators forged Federal court orders and opinions. Amongst the violations of law that are the subject of this lawsuit are the marketing of non-existent Epstein settlements and the sanctioning of a series of depositions that were unrelated to any principled litigation purpose but instead designed to discover extraneous private information about Epstein or his personal and business associates (including well-known public figures) in order to defraud investors and support extortionate demands for payment from Epstein. The misconduct featured the filing of legal motions and the pursuit of a civil litigation strategy that was unrelated to the merits or value of their clients' cases and, instead, had as its improper purpose the furthering of Rothstein's misrepresentations and deceit to third party investors. As a result, Epstein was subject to abusive investigatory tactics, unprincipled media attacks, and unsupportable legal filings. This lawsuit is filed and will be vigorously pursued against all these defendants. The Rothstein racketeering enterprise endeavored to compromise the core values of both state and federal justice systems in South Florida and to vindicate the hardworking and honest lawyers and their clients who were adversely affected by the misconduct that is the subject of this Complaint.
+
+Plaintiff reserves the right to add additional defendants — co-conspirators as the facts and evidence is developed.
+
+# GENERAL ALLEGATONS
+
+- 1. This is an action for damages in excess of \$15,000.00, exclusive costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.
+
+2. Plaintiff, EPSTEIN, is an adult and currently is residing and works in Palm Beach County, Florida.
+
+3. Defendant, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN ("ROTHSTEIN"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida, and was licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. In November 2009, ROTHSTEIN voluntarily relinquished his law license in the midst of the implosion of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A. (" RRA"). He was disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court on November 20, 2009. On December 1, 2009, ROTHSTEIN was arrested and arraigned in Federal Court in Broward County, Florida.
+
+4. At all times relevant hereto, ROTHSTEIN was the managing partner and CEO of RRA.
+
+5. Defendant, ROTHSTEIN and Stuart Rosenfeldt, are and were the principal owners of equity in RRA and each co-founded RRA.
+
+6. Defendant, MB J. (aMill"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida and is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. At all times relevant hereto, was an employee, agent, associate, partner, shareholder, and/or other representative of RRA.
+
+7. Defendant, L.M. ("L.M."), is an individual residing in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times relevant hereto, L.M. was represented by RRA, ROTHSTEIN and in a civil lawsuit against Epstein and was an essential participant in the scheme referenced infra by, among other things, substantially changing prior sworn testimony, so as to assist the Defendants in promoting their fraudulent scheme for the
+
+promise of a multi-million dollar recovery relative to the Civil Actions (defined below) involving Epstein, which was completely out of proportion to her alleged damages.
+
+8. Non-party, RRA is a Florida Professional Service Corporation, with a principal address of 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33401. In addition to its principal office, RRA also maintained seven offices in Florida, New York, and Venezuela, and employed over 70 attorneys and 200 support staff. RRA also maintains an office at 1109 NE 2d Street, Hallendale Beach, Florida 33009-8515. RRA, through its attorneys, including those named as Defendants herein, conducted business throughout Florida, and relevant to this action, conducted business and filed lawsuits on behalf of clients in Palm Beach County, Florida. (RRA is currently adebtor in bankruptcy. RRA is not named as a Defendant).
+
+### FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
+
+9. The United States in United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein, Case No. 09-60331CR-Cohn, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, has brought an action for Racketeering Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) against Scott W. Rothstein who was the chief executive officer and chairman of RRA. Within the information which was filed, the United States of America has identified the enterprise as being the law firm, RRA, through which Rothstein in conjunction with "his coconspirators" (not yet identified by the USA) engaged in the pattern of racketeering through its base of operation at the offices of RRA from sometime in 2005 up through and continuing into November of 2009. Through various criminal activities, including mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering, the United States of America asserts that Epstein v. RRA, et al.
+
+Page 5
+
+Rothstein and his co-conspirators unlawfully obtained approximately \$1.2 billion from investors by fraud in connection with a Ponzi scheme. The USA further alleges that "Rothstein and co-conspirators initiated the criminal conduct alleged in the instant Information in order to personally enrich themselves and to supplement the income and sustain the daily operation of RRA." In essence, in the absence of Rothstein and his coconspirators conducting the Ponzi scheme, the daily operation of RRA, which included payroll (compensation to lawyers, staff, investigators, etc.), accounts payable including unlimited improper, harassing and potential illegal investigation on cases, including Epstein-related matters, would in all likelihood would not have been sustainable. A copy of the information is attached as Exhibit 1 to this action.
+
+10. As more fully set forth herein, RRA held itself out as legitimately and properly engaging in the practice of law. In reality, ROTHSTEIN and others in RRA were using RRA to market investments, as described below, so as to bilk investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars. ROTHSTEIN and others in RRA devised an elaborate plan through which were sold purported confidential assignments of a structured pay-out settlements, supposedly reached on behalf of RRA for clients, in exchange for immediate payments to these clients of a discounted lump sum amount. Investors were being promised in excess of a 30% return on their investment which was to be paid out to the investors over time. While some of the cases relied upon to induce investor funding were existing filed cases, it is believed that the confidential, structured pay-out settlements were all fabricated.
+
+11. Based on media reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) press conferences and releases and the Information the massive Ponzi scheme and pattern of criminal activity meant to lure investors began sometime in 2005 and continued through the fall of 2009, when the scheme was uncovered by some of the investors and the FBI. As of November of 2009, civil lawsuits were and continue to be filed against various Defendants as result of their massive fraudulent and criminal scheme.
+
+12. This fraudulent and illegal investment scheme is also evidenced by the filing of Amended Complaint For Dissolution And For Emergency Transfer of Corporate Powers to Stuart A. Rosen feldt, Or, In The Alternative, For the Appointment of A Custodian or Receiver by ROSENFELDT, and RRA, against ROTHSTEIN, individually. (Case No. 09 059301, In the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, Complex Business Div.), (hereinafter "RRA dissolution action, and attached hereto as Exhibit 2).
+
+13. Plaintiff references the RRA dissolution action for the sole purpose that it acknowledges that RRA and ROTHSTEIN were In fact conducting an illegal and improper investment or Ponzi scheme based on promises of financial returns from settlements or outcomes of supposed legal actions, including the actions brought against Plaintiff EPSTEIN. The RRA dissolution action alleges in part that — "ROTHSTEIN, the managing partner and CEO of the firm (RRA), has, according to assertions of certain investors, allegedly orchestrated a substantial misappropriation of funds from investor trust accounts that made use of the law firm's name (RRA). The investment business created and operated by ROTHSTEIN centered around the sale of
+
+interests in structured settlements." See Preliminary Statement of RRA dissolution action, Exhibit 2 hereto.
+
+14. In furtherance of the scheme, RRA's letterhead was used in communications regarding investment opportunities in purported structured settlements. RRA's trust account was used to deposit hundreds of millions of dollars or wire transfer of monies from duped investors and other victims. RRA personally guaranteed payments.
+
+15. Rothstein's scheme went so far as to manufacture false and fraudulent Court opinions/orders including forging the signatures of U.S. District Judge, Kenneth A. Marra and U.S. Circuit Court Judge, Susan H. Black, 11th Circuit in other cases. It is not yet known if he forged similar documents in Esptein related matters. See Composite Exhibit 3 hereto.
+
+16. The details of this fraudulent scheme are being revealed on a daily basis through various media reports and court documents. The most recent estimate of the financial scope of the scheme is that it exceeds \$1.2 billion dollars.
+
+17. Relevant to this action, EPSTEIN is currently named as a defendant in three civil actions alleging, inter alia, sexual assault and battery that were handled by RRA and its attorneys including prior to its implosion — one of which is filed in federal court (Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV-80893, U.S.D.C. S.D. Fla.)(Jane Doe is a named Defendant herein), and two of which have been filed in state court in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, State of Florida, (L.M. v. Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB Aft E.W. v. Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028058XXXXMB Epstein v. RRA, el al.
+
+Page 8
+
+AB), (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Civil Actions," and L.M is a named Defendant herein). The Civil Actions were all filed in August and September of 2008.
+
+18. What is clear is that a fraudulent and improper investment or Ponzi scheme was in fact conducted and operated by RRA and certain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions.
+
+19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. He stated 1 was convinced it was all a Ponzi scheme and I notified the FBI in detail how Scotty ROTHSTEIN was hiding behind a legitimate law firm to peddle fake investments? Attorney Sakowitz was also quoted as saying ROTHSTEIN had sophisticated eavesdropping equipment and former law enforcement officers who would sift through a potential defendants' garbage looking for damaging evidence to use with investors to show how potential defendants could be in essence blackmailed into paying settlement that far exceeded the value of any legitimate damage claim.
+
+20. Ft. Lauderdale attorney William Scherer represents multiple Rothstein related investors. He indicated in an article that RRA/Rothstein had used the "Epstein Ploy ... as a showpiece as bait. That's the way he raised all the money. He would use. . .cases as bait for luring investors into fictional cases. All the cases he allegedly structured were fictional. I don't believe there was a real one in there." In fact, on November 20, 2009, William Scherer, on behalf of certain clients, filed a 147 page Complaint against ROTHSTEIN, David Boden, Debra , Andrew Barnett, TD Bank, N.A.,
+
+Spinosa, Jennifer Kerstetter, Rosanne Caretsky and Preve asserting various allegations that further prove the massive Ponzi scheme behind the RRA façade; and as of November 25, 2009, a249 page Amended Complaint naming additional Defendants was filed.
+
+21. In addition, and upon information and belief, ROTHSTEIN, David Boden, Debbie , Andrew Barnett, Michael Fisten and Kenneth Jenne (all employees of RRA) through brokers or middlemen would stage regular meetings during which false statements were made about the number of cases/clients that existed or RRA had against EPSTEIN and the value thereof. They would show and share actual case files from the EPSTEIN actions with hedge fund managers. Thus, the attorneys and clients have waived any attorney-client or work- product privileges that otherwise may have existed.
+
+22. Because potential investors were given access to some of the actual Civil Action files, investor-third parties may have became aware of a name of an existing Plaintiff who had filed anonymously against Epstein and had opposed disclosure of her legal name.
+
+23. In all other instances, by RRA, ROTHSTEIN and claiming the need for anonymity with regard to existing or fabricated clients, they were able to effectively use initials, Jane Doe or other anonymous designations which was a key element in the fraudulent scheme. Fictitious names could be created to make the investors believe many other cases existed against Epstein.
+
+24. In each of RRA's Civil Actions, the Plaintiffs are or were represented by RRA and its attorneys, including ROTHSTEIN and
+
+25. In addition, investors were told that in addition to the Civil Actions another fifty (50) plus anonymous females were represented by RRA, with the potential for hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements, and that RRA and its attorneys would sue Epstein unless he paid exorbitant-settlement amounts to protect his high-profile friends.
+
+26. Upon information and belief, knew or should have known that ROTHSTEIN was utilizing RRA as a front for the massive Ponzi scheme and/or were selling an alleged interest or investment in the Civil Actions (and other claims) involving Epstein.
+
+27. Further evidencing that (and possibly other attorneys of RRA) knew or should have known and participated in the continuation of the massive Ponzi scheme, a front-page Palm Beach Post article, dated November 24, 2009, reported on the recent filing of an amended forfeiture complaint by prosecutors against "dozens of ROTHSTEIN's real estate properties, foreign cars, restaurants and other assets including \$12 million in the lawyer's bank account in Morocco, along with millions more donated to political campaigns and charitable funds." The article further reported that —
+
+Attorney Scott ROTHSTEIN tapped into millions of dollars from his massive investment scam to cover payroll costs at his expanding Fort Lauderdale law firm, federal authorities said in court records released Monday.
+
+ROTHSTEIN's law firm (RRA) generated revenue of \$8 million in one recent year, yet his 70-lawyer law firm had a payroll of \$18 million,
+
+> prosecutors said. ROTHSTEIN, who owned half of RRA used investors' money from his Ponzi scheme to make up the shortfall, they said.
+
+Subsequent articles and court filings have reflected ROTHSTEIN received compensation in excess of \$35.7 million in 2008 and \$10.5 million in 2009, while his partner Rosenfeldt received greater than \$6 million in 2008.
+
+28. ROTHSTEIN attempted to lure the entity known as D3 Capital Club, LLC, ("D3"), by offering D3 the opportunity" to invest in a pre-suit \$30,000,000.00 court settlement against EPSTEIN; yet this supposed settlement never existed and was entirely fabricated. To augment his concocted story, ROTHSTEIN, upon information and belief, invited D3 to his office to view thirteen (13) banker's boxes of case files in Jane Doe (one of the Civil Actions)1in an attempt to substantiate that the claims against EPSTEIN were legitimate and that the evidence obtained against him by RRA, ROTHSTEIN, and (the "Litigation Team") was real.
+
+29. Upon information and belief, ROTHSTEIN and others offered other investors like the entity D3 fabricated investment opportunities in the Civil Actions involving EPSTEIN. Fisten (a former Dade County police officer with a questionable police record and RRA investigator) and Jenne (a former attomey, Broward County Sheriff and felon) assisted ROTHSTEIN in making these offers by providing confidential, privileged and workproduct information to prospective third-party investors.
+
+ x27; It appears that 13 out of the 40 boxes seized by the FBI as part of its Investigation at RRA consisted of files relating to the Civil Actions involving EPSTEIN, as reported by counsel for the Bankruptcy Trustee. Until those boxes can be reviewed, as well as other discovery, Epstein will not know the depth of the fraud and those involved.
+
+30. By using the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN as "bait" and fabricating settlements regarding same, ROTHSTEIN and others were able to lure investors into ROTHSTEIN'S lair and bilked them of millions of dollars which, in turn, was used to fund the litigation against EPSTEIN for the sole purpose of continuing the massive Ponzi scheme.
+
+31. As part of this scheme, ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team, individually and in a concerted effort, may have unethically and illegally:
+
+- a. Sold, allowed to be sold and/or assisted with the sale of an interest in nonsettled personal injury lawsuits (which are non-assignable and nontransferable) or sold non-existent structured settlements (including those cases involving Epstein);
+- b. Reached agreements to share attorneys fees with non-lawyers;
+- c. Used investor money to pay plaintiffs (i.e., L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe) "up front" money such that plaintiffs would refuse to settle the Civil Actions;
+- d. Conducted searches, wiretaps or intercepted conversations in violation of state or federal laws and Bar rules; and
+- e. Utilized the judicial process including, but not limited to, unreasonable and unnecessary discovery, for the sole purpose of furthering the Ponzi scheme.
+
+32. Any such actions by ROTHSTEIN, and other attorneys, including the Litigation Team, directly or indirectly, would potentially be a violation of various Florida Bar Rules, Epstein v. RRA, et al.
+
+Page 13
+
+including prohibiting the improper sharing of fees or costs and various conflicts of issues rules.
+
+33. Evidencing that the Litigation Team knew or should have known of the improper purpose that ROTHSTEIN was pursuing in the continuation of the scheme, ROTHSTEIN used RRA's Litigation Team in the EPSTEIN cases to pursue issues and evidence unrelated to and unnecessary to the claims pled in the Civil Actions, but significantly beneficial to lure investors into the Ponzi scheme orchestrated by ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators.
+
+34. Upon information and belief, ROTHSTEIN and others claimed their investigators discovered that there were high-profile individuals onboard Epstein's private jet where sexual assaults took place and showed D3 (and possibly others) copies of a flight log purportedly containing names of celebrities, dignitaries, and international figures.
+
+35. For instance, the Litigation Team relentlessly and knowingly pursued flight data and passenger manifests regarding flights EPSTEIN took with these famous individuals knowing full well that no underage women were onboard and no illicit activities took place. ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team also inappropriately attempted to take the depositions of these celebrities in acalculated effort to bolster the marketing scam that was taking place.
+
+36. One of Plaintiffs' counsel, deposed three of EPSTEIN'S pilots, and sought the deposition of a fourth pilot (currently serving in Iraq). The pilots were deposed by for over twelve (12) hours, and never asked one question relating to or about E.W., L.M., and Jane Doe (RRA clients) as it related to
+
+transportation on flights of RRA clients on any of EPSTEIN'S planes. Butasked many inflammatory and leading irrelevant questions about the pilots' thoughts and beliefs (which will never be admissible at trial) which could only have been asked for the purposes of "pumping" the cases and thus by using the depositions to sell the cases (or a part of them) to third parties.
+
+37. Because of these facts, ROTHSTEIN claimed that Epstein wanted to make certain none of these individuals would be deposed and therefore he had offered \$200,000,000.00 to settle the claims of RRA female clients various potential plaintiffs in actions against EPSTEIN. The offer of a \$200 million dollar settlement by EPSTEIN was completely fabricated; no such offer had ever been made.
+
+38. office also notified Defendant that he intended to take the depositions of and was subpoenaing:
+
+- (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul);
+- (ii) Alan Dershowitz (noted Harvard Law professor, constitutional attorney and one of EPSTEIN'S criminal defense attorneys); (iii)Bill Clinton (Former President of the United States); (iv)Tommy Mottola (former President of Sony Record); and
+- (v) David Copperfield (illusionist).
+
+39. The above-named individuals were friends and acquaintances of EPSTEIN with whom he knew through business or philanthropic work over the years. None of the above-named individuals had any connection whatsoever with any of the Litigation Team's clients, E.W., L.M. or Jane Doe.
+
+40. MIS filed amended answers to interrogatories in the state court matters, E.W. and L.M., and listed additional high profile witnesses that would allegedly be called at trial, including, but not limited to:
+
+- (i) Bill MEM (Governor of New Mexico, formerly U.S. Representative and Ambassador to the United Nations); and
+- (ii) Any and all persons having knowledge of EPSTEIN'S charitable, political or other donations;2
+
+41. The sole purpose of the scheduling of these depositions or listing high profile friends/acquaintances as potential witnesses was, again, to "pump" the cases to investors. There is no evidence to date that any of these individuals had or have any knowledge regarding RRA's Civil Actions.
+
+42. In furtherance of their illegal and fraudulent scheme against EPSTEIN, ROTHSTEIN, (who either know or should have known) and, at times, L.M. In her Civil Action against EPSTEIN:
+
+- a) Included claims for damages in Jane Doe's federal action in excess of \$50,000,000.00 rather than simply alleging the jurisdictional limits.
+- b) Organized aJane Doe TV media interview without any legitimate legal purpose other than to "pump" the federal case for potential
+
+2 These high-profile celebrity "purported" witnesses have no personal knowledge regarding the facts on these 'Three Cases", but were being contacted, subpoenaed or listed to harass and intimidate them and Epstein, and to add "star appeal to the marketing effort of the Ponzi scheme.
+
+investors or to prejudice Epstein's right to a fair trial in Palm Beach County.
+
+- c) , Berger and Adler (another named partner in RRA) all attended EPSTEIN's deposition. At that time, outrageous questions were asked of EPSTEIN which had no bearing on the case, but so that the video and questions could be shown to investors.
+- d) Conducted and attempted to conduct completely irrelevant discovery unrelated to the claims in or subject matter of the Civil Actions for the purpose of harassing and embarrassing witnesses and EPSTEIN and causing EPSTEIN to spend tens of thousands of dollars in unnecessary attorneys' fees and costs defending what appeared to be discovery related to the Civil Actions but was entirely related to the furtherance of the Ponzi scheme.
+- e) After was recruited and joined RRA in the spring of 2009, the tone and tenor of rhetoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by Attorney and Berger changed dramatically in addressing the court on various motions from being substantive on the facts pled to ridiculously inflammatory and sound-bite rich such as the July 31, 2009, transcript when stated to the Court in E.W./L.M.: 'What the evidence is really going to show is that Mr. Epstein — at least dating back as
+
+> far as our investigation and resources have permitted, back to 1997 or '98 — has every single day of his life, made an attempt to sexually abuse children. We're not talking about five, we're not talking about 20, we're not talking about 100, we're not talking about 400, which, I believe, Is the number known to law enforcement, we are talking about thousands of children. . . and it is through a very intricate and complicated system that he devised where he has as many as 20 people working underneath him that he is paying well to schedule these appointments, to locate these girls."
+
+- f) As an example, filed an unsupportable and legally deficient Motion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of Assets, Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a \$15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaintiff's motion entirely devoid of evidence . . . ", and denied the motion in Coto. ROTHSTEIN told investors he had another 52 females that he represented, and that Epstein had offered \$200 million to resolve,
+- 9)
+
+but that he could settle, confidently, these cases for \$500 million, separate and apart from his legal fees.
+
+h) ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team knew or should have known that their three (3) filed cases were weak and had minimal value for the following reasons:
+
+(I) L.M. — testified she never had any type of sex with Epstein; worked at numerous strip clubs; is an admitted prostitute and call girl; has a history of illegal drug use (pot, painkillers, Xanax, Ecstasy); and continually asserted the 5th Amendment during her depositions in order to avoid answering relevant but problem questions for her;
+
+E.W. — testified she worked at eleven (11) separate strip clubs, including Cheetah which RRA represented and in which ROTHSTEIN may have owned an interest; and E.W. also worked at Platinum Showgirls in Boynton Beach, which was the subject of a recent police raid where dancers were allegedly selling prescription painkillers and drugs to customers and prostituting themselves.
+
+Jane Doe (federal case) seeks \$50 million from Epstein. She and her attorneys claim severe
+
+emotional distress as a result of her having voluntarily gone to Epstein's home. She testified that there was never oral, and or sexual intercourse; nor did she ever touch his genitalia. Yet, Jane Doe suffered extreme emotional distress well prior to meeting Epstein as a result of having witnessed her father murder his girlfriend's son. She was required to give sworn testimony in that matter and has admitted that she has lied in sworn testimony. Jane Doe worked at two different strip clubs, including Platinum Showgirls in Boynton Beach.
+
+- i) Conducted ridiculous and irrelevant discovery such as subpoenaing records from an alleged sex therapist, Dr. Leonard Bard in Massachusetts, when the alleged police report reflected that EPSTEIN had only seen a chiropractor in Palm Beach named Dr. Bard. No records relating to EPSTEIN existed for this alleged sex therapist, Dr. Bard, and the alleged subpoena for records was just another mechanism to "pump" the cases for investor appeal;
+- j) Allowed a Second Amended Complaint to be filed on behalf of L.M. alleging that EPSTEIN forced the minor into "oral sex," yet L.M. testified that she never engaged in oral, anal, or vaginal
+
+intercourse with EPSTEIN and she had never touched his genitalia.
+
+- k) Told investors, as reported in an Associated Press article, that celebrities and other famous people had flown on EPSTEIN'S plane when assaults took place. Therefore, even though none (zero) of RRA's clients claim they flew of EPSTEIN'S planes, the Litigation Team sought pilot and plane logs. Why? Again, to prime the investment "pump" with new money without any relevance to the existing claims made by the RRA clients.
+
+- I) After joined RRA, and former Circuit Judge William Berger filed and argued motion to make the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Epstein and USAO public. But, RRA, and Berger, and their three clients, already had a copy of the NPA. They knew what it said and they knew the civil provisions in the agreement had no impact whatsoever on the three pending Civil Actions.
+
+The concept behind certain civil provisions in the NPA was to allow an alleged victim to resolve a civil claim with Epstein, maintain her complete privacy and anonymity and move on with her life. As an assistant United States Attorney stated at a hearing in federal court, the NPA was not designed "to hand them a jackpot or a key to a bank."
+
+Epstein v. RRA, et al.
+
+Page 21
+
+43. ROTHSTEIN, with the intent and improper motive to magnify his financial gain so continue to fund the fraudulent and illegal investment and/or Ponzi scheme, had demand excessive money from EPSTEIN In the Civil Actions.
+
+44. The actions described in paragraph 42 above herein had no legitimate purpose in pursuing the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN, but rather were meant to further the fraudulent scheme and criminal activity of ROTHSTEIN so that he and others could fraudulently overvalue the settlement value of the existing and non-existent claims against EPSTEIN to potential investors.
+
+45. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, RRA and its attorneys in the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN may have compromised their clients' interests. ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team would have been unable to give unbiased legal counsel because outside investor(s) had been promised a financial interest in the outcome of the actions. Additionally, if a plaintiff received payments from investment monies while her action is pending, this clearly could impact the plaintiffs decision of whether or not to settle the current litigation or shade their testimony (i.e. commit perjury) to gain the greatest return on the investment and to further promote the Ponzi Scheme.
+
+46. The truthfulness of L.M.'s allegations and testimony in L.M.'s state civil action have been severely compromised by the need to seek a multi-million dollar payout to help maintain RRA's massive fraud. Because fictitious settlements of tens of millions of dollars in cases relating to EPSTEIN were represented to "investors" in this Ponzi scheme, RRA and the attorneys in the Civil Actions needed to create a fiction that
+
+included extraordinary damages. However, the actual facts behind her action would never support such extraordinary damages. Therefore, extraordinary measures were undertaken to create an entirely inflated value of her claims against EPSTEIN.
+
+- a. Though she held herself out as a "victim" of Epstein, she admitted to having returned over and over again to him despite her current claim of abuse. She has now admitted, under oath, to being acall girl/escort since the age of 15. (in her deposition September 24, 2009 Transcript "DT" 280:16-19). She testified "Well, I lived life as a prostitute," (see DT 156:7) and 1 am a prostitute when I make money" (see DT 156:12-13). L.M. admitted her activity with men other than Epstein to making \$1,000 a day from prostitution on maybe more than 20 occasions in one year alone (DT 157:11-158:21). L.M. admitted under oath to keeping alist of amounts she collected from 'Johns" in "two or three" lined books including abook of "Psalms" that she obtained from a religious store (DT 152:1-14). Under the circumstances, her claim for damages against EPSTEIN, one of L.M.'s many "Johns" during that same period, would be so incredible and certainly not likely to produce the extraordinary settlements promised to "RRA's investors."
+
+47. In April 2007, before she was represented by , and RRA, L.M. gave swom taped recorded testimony to the agents of the FBI. She was represented by a lawyer other than at that statement. She spoke of EPSTEIN in a very positive and friendly terms and directly contradicted the central allegations on which L.M.'s civil action against Epstein is now based. However, once in the hands of
+
+and RRA, L.M.'s story changed dramatically. All of a sudden she wanted to sue EPSTEIN and like other RRA clients, sought tens of millions of dollars.
+
+> a. For example, in her sworn statement to the FBI, L.M. was insistent that "Jeffrey is an awesome man." (p. 21 — FBI); At the conclusion of she stated: "I hope Jeffrey, nothing happens to Jeffrey because he's an awesome man and it really would be a shame. It's a shame that he has to go through this because he's an awesome guy and he didn't do nothing wrong, nothing." (pp. 57-58 - FBI). In fact, L.M. spoke so highly of EPSTEIN and her interactions with him that the US Attorney's office informed a federal court in July 2008 that the US Attorney could not consider L.M. a victim.
+
+Yet, by September 24, 2009, the date on which L.M. began her deposition in her civil action and now represented by RRA and , L.M.'s new and very different tale about purported sexual misconduct under the supposed influence of EPSTEIN had been thoroughly rehearsed and her role into the ROTHSTEIN scam was complete. In her deposition in her civil action, L.M. declared that:
+
+"I, I don't really care about money." (DT 206:8)
+
+"He needs time in jail. He doesn't want to be — this is not right for him to be on the streets living daily . . ." (DT 219:21-23)
+
+"You don't think my whole life I have lived that shifty life because of Jeffrey Epstein?" (DT 222:7-8)
+
+- b. In her sworn FBI testimony (pre and RRA), L.M. was emphatic that her interactions with Epstein involved no inappropriate sexual touching in any way. In fact, it was exactly the opposite:
+
+Q: Did he at any point kiss you, touch you, show any kind of affection towards you?
+
+A: Never, never. (p. 21 — FBI) . . .
+
+Q: So he never pulled you closer to him in a sexual way?
+
+A: I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. (p. 21 - FBI)
+
+Yet, L.M. filed her second amended complaint in April 2009, after joined RRA, the allegations against EPSTEIN in L.M.'s complaint became even more salacious. In paragraph 12 of L.M.'s Second Amended Complaint, L.M. alleges among other things, that:
+
+"Jeffrey Epstein coerced, induced, or enticed . . .the then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct. These acts included, but were not limited to, fondling and inappropriate and illegal sexual touching of the then minor Plaintiff, forcing or inducing the then minor plaintiff into oral sex or other sexual misconduct..."
+
+c. In her sworn FBI statement (pre and RRA), L.M. testified that MK the individual who first brought L.M. to EPSTEIN's home, told L.M. "make sure you're 18 because Jeffrey doesn't want any underage girls." (p. 8 - FBI).
+
+> Yet at her September, 2009 deposition now represented by and RRA, L.M. told a very different story:
+
+> O: My question was what did Carolyn tell you to tell Mr. Epstein about your age?
+
+A: She said it didn't matter.
+
+Q: That's your recollection about what she said?
+
+A: Yes, she said — I remember her saying it doesn't matter. Don't worry about it.
+
+(DT 199:20-25)
+
+d. Pre and RRA, L.M. testified to the FBI : "I always made sure I had a fake ID, anyways saying that I was 18." (p. 8 - FBI).
+
+Yet, when questioned about her fake ID at her September 2009 depo, she stated:
+
+Q: And did you have a fake ID?
+
+A: No.
+
+Q: Have you ever had a fake ID?
+
+A: No.
+
+(DT 300:5-8)
+
+e. In her FBI statement (pre/ and RRA), L.M. testified about others L.M. brought to the Epstein home. L.M. testified that women she brought to EPSTEIN's home were eager for the opportunity and content with their experiences:
+
+> A: None of my girls ever had a problem and they'd call me. They'd beg me, you know, for us to go to Jeffrey's house because they love Jeffrey. Jeffrey is a respectful man. He really is. I mean, and he all thought we were of age always. This is what's so sad about it. (p 30 - FBI).
+
+Q: Did any of the girls complain about what happened after they left there?
+
+A: No. You asked me that question. No, everybody loved Jeffrey. (p. 44 - FBI)
+
+A: Every girl that I brought to Jeffrey, they said they were fine with it. and like for example (E.W. — another of RRA's clients in the Civil Actions], alot of girls begged me to bring them back for the money. And as far as I know, we all had fun there. (p. 45 - FBI)
+
+Yet, with and RRA as her attorneys, L.M. did a '180" at her
+
+September, 2009 deposition in saying:
+
+A: . . . Once they were there, they were scared out of their mind.
+
+They did it anyways and some of them walked out and said L.M. don't ever do this to me again. That was the worst thing that ever happened to me. (DT 170:6-11)
+
+. . A: And then, alot of girls weren't comfortable. (DT 171:13)
+
+f. The above represent only afew of the dramatic changes L.M. made
+
+in her testimony prior to her representation by 'RRA and after she
+
+hired ROTHSTEIN, and RRA.
+
+48. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, L.M. may knowingly have compromised her alleged interests in her Civil Action, or committed afraud on the court.
+
+49. RRA and the Litigation Team took an emotionally driven set of facts involving alleged innocent, unsuspecting, underage females and a Palm Beach Billionaire and sought to turn it into a gold mine. Rather than evaluating and resolving the cases based on the merits (i.e. facts) which included knowledgeable, voluntary and consensual actions by each of the claimants and substantial pre-Epstein psychological and emotional conditions of each of the claimants and substantial sexual experiences pre-Epstein, RRA and the Litigation Team sought through protective orders and objections to block relevant discovery regarding their claimants. They instead forged ahead with discovery the main purpose of which was to pressure Epstein into settling the cases.
+
+Fortunately, their tactics have not been successful. As Magistrate Judge Linnea wrote in a discovery order dated September 15, 2009 (DE 299 in Federal Case #08-80119) in denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order:
+
+"This is his (Epstein's] right. The Record in this case is clear that the childhood of many of the Plaintiffs was marred by instances of abuse and neglect, which in turn may have resulted, in whole or in part, in the damages claimed by the Plaintiffs."
+
+In addition, in an Omnibus Order dated October 28, 2009 (DE 377 in Federal Case #08-80119) Magistrate Judge Linnea wrote:
+
+"Here the request at issue goes to the very heart of the Plaintiffs damage claims, requesting not only general information relating to Plaintiffs sexual history, but inquiring as to specific Instances wherein Plaintiff received compensation or consideration for sex acts, claim other males sexually assaulted, battered, or abuses her, and/or claim other males committed lewd or lascivious acts on her. As a global matter, Plaintiffs clearly and unequivocally place their sexual history in issue by their allegations that Epstein's actions in this case has negatively affected their relationships by, among other things, "distrust in men," "sexual intimacy problems," "diminished trust," "social problems," " problems in personal relationships," " feeling of stress around men," "premature teenage pregnancy," "antisocial behaviors," and "hyper-sexuality and promiscuity." Considering these allegation, there simply can be no question that Epstein is entitled to know whether Plaintiffs were molested or the subject of other "sexual activity" or "lewd
+
+> and lascivious conduct" in order to determine whether there is an alternative basis for the psychological disorders Plaintiffs claim to have sustained, whether Plaintiffs engaged in prostitution or other similar type acts and how certain acts alleged in the Complaint materially affected Plaintiffs' relationships with others or how those acts did not have such an affect on those relationships and/or whether Plaintiffs suffered from the alleged emotional and psychological disorders as a result of other sexual acts prior to the acts alleged in the Complaint. To deny Epstein thus discovery, would be tantamount to barring him from mounting a defense."
+
+50. ROTHSTEIN, and L.M.'s actions constitute a fraud upon EPSTEIN as RRA, ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team represented themselves to be acting in good faith and with the bests interests of their clients in mind at all times when in reality, they were acting in furtherance of the investment or Ponzi scheme described herein. EPSTEIN justifiably relied to his detriment on the representations of RRA, and Defendants, ROTHSTEIN, and L.M. as to how he conducted and defended the Civil Actions brought against him.
+
+51. As a direct and proximate result of the fraudulent and illegal investment or Ponzi scheme orchestrated by ROTHSTEIN and as yet other unknown co-conspirators and as aresult of the litigation tactics undertaken by the Litigation Team and L.M. as set forth herein, Plaintiff EPSTEIN has incurred and continues to incur the monetary damages including, but not limited to, having to pay an amount in excess of the Civil Actions' true value as a result of them refusing to settle In that a percentage of any payment by
+
+EPSTEIN may have been promised to third party investors; incurring significant additional legal fees and costs as result of Defendants refusal to conduct settlement negotiations in a forthright and good faith manner because any monies paid by EPSTEIN is in reality a promised return on an investment; and incurred significant attorneys' fees and costs in defending the discovery that was not relevant, material and/or calculated to lead to the admissibility of evidence, but which was done for the sole purpose of "pumping" the cases to investors.
+
+52. EPSTEIN has also been injured in that the scope of the fraudulent and criminal or racketeering activity so permeated the RRA law firm that EPSTEIN has been prevented from fully and fairly defending the civil actions brought against him. In essence, the very existence of RRA was based on the continuation of the massive Ponzi scheme orchestrated by ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators. In order to continue to bring in monies from investors, ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators used the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN, along with other manufactured lawsuits, as a means of obtaining massive amounts of money.
+
+53. ROTHSTEIN, and L.M. are liable for damages caused to EPSTEIN individually, and jointly and severally.
+
+## Count I — Violation of O772.101, et seq., Fla. Stat - Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act — Against All Defendants
+
+54. Plaintiff reaileges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully set forth herein.
+
+55. RRA, ROTHSTEIN, and L.M. each and collectively constitute an enterprise pursuant to §772.102(3), Fla. Stat. (2009).
+
+56. ROTHSTEIN, and L.M. engaged in a pattern of criminal activity as defined in §772.102(3) and (4), Fla. Stat. (2009).
+
+57. As alleged herein, ROTHSTEIN and committed multiple predicate acts in violation of §772.103(1), (2), (3) and (4), Fla. Stat., including violations of Florida Statutes - Chapter 517, relating to securities transactions; Chapter 817, relating to fraudulent practices, false pretenses, and fraud generally (which includes L.M.); Chapter 831, relating to forgery; §836.05, relating to extortion (which includes L.M.); and Chapter 837, relating to perjury (which includes L.M.). Substantially more than two predicate acts (i.e., the selling of or participation of the sale of fabricated settlements outlined herein, including the Civil Actions involving Epstein as well as the improper litigation tactics outlined above) occurred within a five-year time period.
+
+58. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, and L.M.'s violations of §772.103, Fla. Stat., EPSTEIN has been injured.
+
+59. Pursuant to §772.104(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to threefold of his actual damages sustained, reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, and such other damages as allowed by law.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiff EPSTEIN respectfully demands the entry of a judgment for damages against all the named Defendants.
+
+> Count II — Florida RICO - "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act" Pursuant to SO95.01, et see.. Fla. Stat. (2009), Against All Defendants
+
+60. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully set forth herein.
+
+61. RRA, along with ROTHSTEIN, and L.M., each and collectively, constitute an enterprise pursuant to §895.02(3), Fla. Stat. (2009).
+
+62. During all times relevant hereto, ROTHSTEIN, and L.M. were and are associated with the enterprise, RRA, and each other.
+
+63. Defendants, ROTHSTEIN, and L.M., as persons associated with the enterprise, RRA and each other (as an enterprise), unlawfully conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in such an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering, § 895.03(3), Fla. Stat., as alleged above herein.
+
+64. The breadth and scope of ROTHSTEIN, and, potentially, L.M.'s racketeering activity continues to be investigated by the FBI, as numerous civil lawsuits against some of the Defendants and others continue to be filed by persons who have been damaged. As of the filing of this Complaint, criminal charges have only been brought against ROTHSTEIN.
+
+65. Substantially more than two predicate acts (i.e., the selling of fabricated settlements outlined herein, including the Civil Actions involving Epstein as well as the improper litigation tactics outlined above) occurred within a five year time period.
+
+66. Pursuant to §895.02, Fla. Stat., ROTHSTEIN and engaged in a pattern of "racketeering activity" through the commission of crimes as defined in § 895.02(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat., including Chapter 517, relating to securities; Chapter 817, relating to fraudulent practices, false pretenses, and fraud (including L.M.) generally;
+
+Chapter 813, relating to forgery; §836.05, relating to extortion (including L.M.); Chapter 837, relating to perjury (including L.M.).
+
+67. Pursuant to §895.05, Fla. Stat., Plaintiff seeks the following relief against Defendants, ROTHSTEIN"... and L.M.:
+
+- a) Ordering ROTHSTEIN and to divest themselves of any interest in the enterprise, RRA;
+- b) Enjoin all Defendants from engaging in the same type of conduct and activities as described herein; and
+- c) Temporarily enjoining ROTHSTEIN, Ia. and L.M., from the continuation of the Civil Actions brought against EPSTEIN until criminal charges have been formally brought against RRA and/or any of the Defendants, such that EPSTEIN may be allowed to evaluate whether a stay or dismissal of all Civil Actions against him is merited.
+
+68. EPSTEIN further seeks an award of his reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and such other relief that this Court deems appropriate.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiff EPSTEIN respectfully demands the entry of a judgment for the relief sought and damages against the named Defendants.
+
+### Count III — Abuse of Process — Against All Defendants
+
+69. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully set forth herein.
+
+70. After instituting the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN, the actions of Defendants, ROTHSTEIN)... and L.M. as alleged in paragraphs 9 through 53 herein, constitute an illegal, improper or perverted use of process.
+
+71. ROTHSTEIN, OMB and L.M. possessed ulterior motives or purposes in exercising such illegal, improper, or perverted use of process.
+
+72. As a result of ROTHSTEIN,... and L.M.'s actions, EPSTEIN suffered damages.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiff EPSTEIN respectfully demands the entry of a judgment for damages against all the named Defendants.
+
+### Count IV — Fraud Against All Defendants
+
+73. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully set forth herein.
+
+74. ROTHSTEIN, by and through Defendant and L.M. made false statements of fact to EPSTEIN and his attorneys and agents, known to be false at the time made, and/or intentionally concealed material information from EPSTEIN and his attorneys and agents, for the purpose of inducing EPSTEIN to act in reliance thereon.
+
+75. EPSTEIN did so act on the misrepresentation and/or concealment by incurring additional attorney's fees, costs, and expenses in aggressively defending the civil actions whereas in reality, because the Civil Actions against Plaintiff were being exploited and over-valued so as to lure additional investors and to attempt to extort as much money as possible from EPSTEIN so as to continue the massive fraud.
+
+WHEREFORE Plaintiff EPSTEIN demands judgment against Defendants for damages incurred and for any other relief to which he is entitled under the law.
+
+# Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Against All Defendants
+
+76. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 53, and 74 and 75 as if fully set forth herein.
+
+77. ROTHSTEIN, and L.M. conspired to commit a fraud upon EPSTEIN.
+
+78. ROTHSTEIN, and L.M. combined by and through concerted action as detailed herein to accomplish an unlawful purpose or accomplish some purpose by unlawful means. The unlawful purpose was, among other things, the orchestrating and continuation of the massive fraudulent Ponzl scheme and receipt of monies for the continuation of the scheme. The unlawful means includes, but is not limited to, the use of the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN in an unlawful, improper, and fraudulent manner.
+
+79. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, and L.M.'s conspiracy to defraud EPSTEIN, EPSTEIN suffered damages.
+
+WHEREFORE Plaintiff EPSTEIN demands judgment against Defendants for damages incurred and for any other relief to which he Is entitled under the law.
+
+# Jury Trial,
+
+Plaintiff demands Jury Trial on all issues so triable.
+
+By: ROBERT i CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida r No. 224162
+
+> rcritabcIclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 moikeObc1claw.com
+
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-842-2820 Fax: 561-253-0154 (Attorneys for Plaintiff)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749571/EFTA02749571.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749571/EFTA02749571.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f5cc01c673b2fad69ae5e90fbab552105130e900
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749571/EFTA02749571.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1578 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749571.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 36,
+ "chars": 51614,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 10.49,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_33.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 290.7,
+ 109.35000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.5,
+ 109.35000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.5,
+ 149.85000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 290.7,
+ 149.85000000000002
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SUMMARY OF ACTION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 247.86,
+ 498.15000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 376.38,
+ 498.15000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 376.38,
+ 510.29999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 247.86,
+ 510.29999999999995
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "GENERAL ALLEGATONS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 246.02400000000003,
+ 630.1800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.6730651855469,
+ 630.1800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.6730651855469,
+ 644.2039031982422
+ ],
+ [
+ 246.02400000000003,
+ 644.2039031982422
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 249.08399999999997,
+ 419.58000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 380.5494384765625,
+ 419.58000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 380.5494384765625,
+ 432.54
+ ],
+ [
+ 249.08399999999997,
+ 432.54
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Count I \u2014 Violation of O772.101, et seq., Fla. Stat -\nFlorida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act \u2014 \nAgainst All Defendants",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 192.168,
+ 598.59
+ ],
+ [
+ 448.6604309082031,
+ 598.59
+ ],
+ [
+ 448.6604309082031,
+ 640.2350311279297
+ ],
+ [
+ 192.168,
+ 640.2350311279297
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Count III \u2014 Abuse of Process \u2014\nAgainst All Defendants",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 32,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 238.06800000000004,
+ 604.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.4924011230469,
+ 604.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 394.4924011230469,
+ 630.2640380859375
+ ],
+ [
+ 238.06800000000004,
+ 630.2640380859375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Count IV \u2014 Fraud \nAgainst All Defendants",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 33,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 252.75599999999997,
+ 369.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 370.1495056152344,
+ 369.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 370.1495056152344,
+ 395.8740539550781
+ ],
+ [
+ 252.75599999999997,
+ 395.8740539550781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Conspiracy to Commit Fraud \nAgainst All Defendants",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 34,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 229.5,
+ 187.11
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.2959899902344,
+ 187.11
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.2959899902344,
+ 216.19146728515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 229.5,
+ 216.19146728515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Jury Trial,",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 34,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 290.08799999999997,
+ 589.6800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 347.5508728027344,
+ 589.6800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 347.5508728027344,
+ 605.6659698486328
+ ],
+ [
+ 290.08799999999997,
+ 605.6659698486328
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 294
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 276
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 320
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 317
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 316
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 305
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 340
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 282
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 322
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 348
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 264
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 302
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 282
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 285
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 261
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 280
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 231
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 247
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 263
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 334
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 337
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 287
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 251
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 218
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 238
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 311
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 311
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 330
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 294
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 293
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 31,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 290
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 32,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 242
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 33,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 280
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 34,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 250
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 35,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749571"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749571/_page_0_Picture_33.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749571/_page_0_Picture_33.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..66f0e4a453bc4c821cb65a9564fc67874d962e26
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749571/_page_0_Picture_33.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:e83b491dfcfac4d95b014dc87163e552e8db07eb8db97376a31c6334eb28e3b9
+size 12433
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749607/EFTA02749607.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749607/EFTA02749607.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bfff279fe7978a63893ddc943649f1efac65a067
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749607/EFTA02749607.md
@@ -0,0 +1,474 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRa
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+#### DEFENDANT'S, CONSOLIDATED RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDERS DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), (DE 4801 AND APRIL 1, 2010 WE 513), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW
+
+Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Orders (DE 462), (DE 480) and (DE 513) pursuant to Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 4, Rule 4(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e). In support, Epstein states:
+
+#### I. Introduction
+
+The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial compulsion and provides, in relevant part, that "[ol]o person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see al§s1 Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not only to answers that would support a criminal conviction, but extends also to those answers which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence
+
+needed to prosecute the claimant for a crime. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). Information is protected by the privilege not only if it would support a criminal conviction, but also in those instances where "the responses would merely `provide a lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate." See United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cent denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Add new case from my e-mail of yesterday: (Court in Englebrick v Worthington Industries Inc 670 F Supp2d 1048 (CD Cal, 2009) rejected motion to compel in helpful language: "A valid assertion of the privilege does not require an imminent criminal prosecution or investigation: 'The right to assert one's privilege against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution' cite omitted ...a possibility of prosecution exists where the witness has not received a grant of immunity, the statute of limitations has not run, double jeopardy does not apply, and there are no other concrete indications that criminal prosecution is barred. See also Belmonte v Lawson, 750 F. Supp. 735, 739 (E.D. Va. 1990)("Courts should avoid engaging in crystal ball forecasts about what a prosecutor may or may not do...).
+
+Significantly, these cases have been consolidated for discovery. Therefore, consistent rulings must apply. In making those rulings, this Court must continue to recognize that the allegations in the related cases cannot be forgotten. (Eg., see DE 242, 293). Production of information in one case could provide a link in the chain of evidence used to prosecute Epstein for a crime or provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence in another case and in another jurisdiction. Id. and infra.
+
+Moreover, in addition to the testimonial privilege discussed herein, the Fifth Amendment includes an act of production which encompasses circumstances highly relevant to certain of the discovery requests at issue where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect in that it would constitute an implied admission as to the defendant's possession or control of the requested documents, as to their authenticity, and as to the defendant's selection of them as meeting the requests for production. See United States v. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would "implicitly authenticate" the requested documents, the act of producing responsive documents is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution and also covers those circumstances where the disclosures would not be directly incriminating, but could provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence).
+
+In addition, several of the requests outlined below implicate Federal Rules of Evidence 408, 410 and 502, and the confidentiality protections intrinsic to federal tax returns that would be unavailable under 26 U.S.C. 6103 even if a subpoena is served upon the IRS. Furthermore,
+
+## II. Procedural Background
+
+Epstein filed his Motions for Reconsideration or, Alternatively, Rule 4 Appeal, at DE 477 and 488. However, this court entered an order (DE 513) allowing for Consolidated Rule 4 Appeals relative to the above docket entries.
+
+### (a) Jane Doe
+
+Plaintiff, Jane Doe's Motion to Compel is filed at DE (194). Defendant's Response in Opposition is filed at DE (339), and the arguments set forth therein are incorporated herein by reference as if completely set forth herein as each apply to request numbers 10, 12 and 13.
+
+## (b) Jane Does 2-8
+
+Plaintiffs, Jane Doe 2-8s' Motion to Compel is filed at DE (333). Defendant's Response in Opposition is filed at DE (390) and the arguments set forth therein are incorporated herein by reference as if completely set forth herein as each apply to request number 1 of Plaintiff's First request to produce Net Worth Discovery.
+
+The Request for Production and the responses thereto are attached as Composite Exhibits "A" and "B".
+
+# III. The Requests For Production, Argument And Memorandum Of Law
+
+## a. Jane Doe - Requests Numbers 7, 9 and 10
+
+Request No. 7: All discovery information obtained by you or your attorneys as a result of the exchange of discovery in the State criminal case against you or the Federal investigation against you.
+
+Request No. 9: Any documents or other evidentiary materials provided to local, state, or federal law enforcement investigators or local, state or federal prosecutors investigating your sexual activities with minors.
+
+Request No. 10: All correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or federal law enforcement or prosecutors (includes, but not limited to, letters to and from the State Attorney's office or any agents thereof).
+
+Response to Request Numbers 7, 9 and 10: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
+
+> Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, the information sought is privileged and confidential, and inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, Fed. Rule of Evidence 410 and 408, and §90.410, Fla. Stat. Further, the request may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege. It appears there is now a direct conflict with what Jane Doe requests (see e.g., DE 354, p.
+
+3). In short, Plaintiff is fast and loose in her argument regarding what she seeks (i.e., she states in no uncertain terms (DE 354, p.3) that she seeks information that the Federal government gave to Epstein. However, in her Reply to the Response in Opposition, she now seeks everything that the government gave to Epstein's lawyers and what his lawyers gave to the Federal government (i.e., the full breadth of the requests). The far broader ambit of the requests implicates whether the Plaintiff is seeking just the communications provided by USA() to Epstein's counsel or all Epstein's counsel's communications with, ems., the USAO, the State Attorneys' Office or any other local, state or Federal law enforcement. If Jane Doe seeks "all" communications, it deeply implicates the work product of Epstein's lawyers. If Plaintiff seeks just the communication provided by the USAO or the State Attorney, it deeply implicates the work product of the USAO and the State Attorney negotiating and communicating with Epstein's counsel which include, but are not limited to, information that resulted in a plea and information that did NOT result in a plea and information that may have resulted in the entering of the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA"). Either way, the requests deeply implicate the protections and policies of FRE 408, 410 and 502 as more fully set forth infra.
+
+Before this limitation was made by Plaintiff, Epstein argued in his response in opposition (DE 339, p.7-8) that these requests are the same type requests the court found subject to the Fifth Amendment. With the limitation made by Plaintiff and her counsel in the Reply, the court ruled "[t]hat the earlier requests referenced by Epstein were significantly broader than the narrow
+
+Page No. 6
+
+requests at issue here, including for example, a request for all documents `relating to' the federal non—prosecution agreement, and all documents 'relating to' either the federal or state criminal investigations. These requests would have required Epstein to pick and choose which documents were responsive and in this way force Epstein to use to effectively make 'use of the content his mind,' an action that would undeniably implicate the Fifth Amendment." (DE 462, p.9) Clearly the instant requests are exactly the same type of broad requests this court has already ruled upon. Had the Plaintiff not limited the scope of the requests in her Reply (DE 354, p.3), the court would not have labeled these requests as "narrow" because these requests now seek all information related to the federal non—prosecution agreement and all documents relating to either the federal or state criminal investigations, which clearly require Epstein to effectively make use of the content his mind to determine what is and what is not responsive to these broad requests.
+
+As a result of the limitation made by Plaintiff in her Reply (DE 354) and as a result of this court's Order (DE 462), Epstein responded - "[a]s to Request Number 7, Epstein and his attorneys do not have any "discovery information" provided to them by the federal government and [a]s to Request Number 9, Epstein has not been given any evidentiary materials or evidentiary documents by the federal government." (DE 477) Certainly, these responses were not intended to "gild the lily" as Plaintiff contends nor are they misleading. Despite what the interrogatory sought, Plaintff chose to limit same in her Reply to only what the Federal Government gave Epstein, and that is exactly how the Magistrate interpreted same. The responses were made based upon Plaintiffs limitation in what she sought from Epstein and because this court entered an Order based upon that limitation. Had the limitation not been made, neither this court nor Epstein would have been misled down this primrose path.
+
+Page No. 7
+
+Nonetheless, Plaintiff now seeks to obtain the full breadth of information sought under request numbers 7, 9 and 10. However, that argument shall meet a short death in that Plaintiff herself limited the scope of the requests in her Reply and failed to timely file her own Rule 4 Appeal after the court entered its order at DE 462, which adopted Plaintiff 's limited scope of the requests (which Plaintiff now wishes to change). See S.D. Fla., Rule 4(a)(1), Mag. J. 2009. If the court made a mistake in adopting the limited scope of the requests (which it did not), Plaintiff should have timely appealed, which she did not. As such, Plaintiff's requested relief in this regard should be denied.
+
+Next, the Magistrate's order as to Request No.: 10 must be reversed because it contravenes critical public policy of encouraging resolution of criminal prosecutions without trial and the concomitant understanding that defendants will be considerably more likely to engage in full and discussions with the government if they need not fear that statements they or their counsel make to government prosecutors will be used against them to their detriment. The policies behind FRE 408, 410 and 502 provide this court with a basis for sustaining Epstein's objections to Request No.: 10. For instance, the critical importance of plea bargaining to the criminal justice system has long been recognized. "[W]hatever might be the situation in an ideal world, the fact is that the guilty plea and the often concomitant plea bargain are important components of this country's criminal justice system. Properly administered, they can benefit all concerned." Bordenkircher v. Haves, 434 U.S. 357, 361-62 (1978), quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71 (1977). To encourage defendants to participate in the plea negotiation process, rules have developed to prohibit admission into evidence against the defendant of any and all statements he or his counsel acting on his behalf makes to government prosecutors during the plea negotiation process. This confidentiality protection is embodied in both Fed. R. Evid. 410 and Fed. R. Crim.
+
+Page No. 8
+
+P. 11(0. While these rules by their express terms refer only to admissibility of evidence, the purposes and policies underlying these rules is instructive in this context, in which a civil plaintiff seeks discovery of documents falling within the scope of these two rules.
+
+Rule 410 was created to promote active plea negotiations and plea bargains, which our Supreme Court has acknowledged are "important components of this country's criminal justice system.". . . Our Court of Appeals has held that "in order for plea bargaining to work effectively and fairly, a defendant must be free to negotiate without fear that this statements will later be used against him.". . . Indeed, absent the protection of Rule 410, "the possibility of self-incrimination would discourage defendants from being completely candid and open during plea negotiations."
+
+S.E.C. v. , 534 F.Supp.2d 63, 66-67 (D.D.C. 2008), quoting United States v. 617 F.2d 677, 683 (D.C.Cir. 1980). See, , United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 205, 207 (1995)(purpose of the rules is to encourage plea bargaining, and rules "creat[e], in effect, a privilege of the defendant," quoting 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence ¶410(05] at 410-43 (1994)); United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir. 2005)("The underlying purpose of Rule 410 is to promote plea negotiations by permitting defendants to talk to prosecutors without sacrificing their ability to defend themselves if no disposition agreement is reached"); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, Advisory Committee Notes, 1979 Amendment ("the purpose of Fed. R. Ev. 410 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(6) [now Rule 11(f)] is to promote the unrestrained candor which produces effective plea discussions"),I
+
+Additional illustration of the high degree of confidentially accorded settlement negotiations is found in Fed. R. Evid. 408, which precludes the introduction into evidence
+
+FRE 410(4) is particularly directed to communications in matters which, like Epstein's, did not result in a plea of guilty to an federal charge. Fla. Stat. §90.410 provides parallel protections in state criminal matters. Epstein pled guilty to Fla. Stat. 796.07(2)(f), Unlawfid to Solicit, Induce, Entice, or Procure Another to Commit Prostitution, Lewdness or Assignation, and Fla. Stat. 796.03, Procuring Person Under Age of 18 For Prostitution. Therefore, in the event this court orders production of said correspondence, then it must first hold an in camera inspection to determine what, if any, documents are related to the foregoing pleas and what documents are not. Along those same lines, an in camera inspection must be had in an effort to redact any information that may violate third-party privacy rights or information that would implicate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. ags infra.
+
+Page No. 9
+
+communications made during settlement negotiations. The purposes underlying Rule 408 are essentially the same as those underlying Fed. R. Crim, P. 11(0 and 410: "to encourage nonlitigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). See, Lg., Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying Rule 408 . . . is the promotion of the public policy favoring the compromise and settlement of disputes that would otherwise be discouraged with the admission of such evidence"); Bankcard America, Inc. v. Universal Bancard Systems, Inc., 203 F.3d 477, 483 (7th Cir. 2000)("Because settlement talks might be chilled if such discussions could later be used as admissions of liability at trial, the rule's purpose is to encourage settlements"); In re A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 197 B.R. 568, 572 (E.D.Va. 1994)("Rule 408 aims to settlement discussions in an individual lawsuit, and therefore insulates the particular parties to a settlement discussion from possible adverse consequences of their and open statements"). So crucial is this policy of confidentiality to the functioning of our federal court system that some courts have held that communications falling within the parameters of Rule 408 are covered by a settlement privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. See, Lg, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976, 979-983 (6th Cir. 2003).
+
+Given the powerful and long-standing policy of according confidentiality to settlement negotiations in both the civil and criminal context, civil plaintiffs should, at a minimum, be required to demonstrate real and concrete need for the material. They should not be permitted to rummage through such sensitive documents based on nothing more than a vague and contentless statement that the materials are "likely to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence." Motion to Compel at 12 n.3, which is all that plaintiff offers as to Request No. 10. This is
+
+particularly so given the reality that parties often take positions or offer potential compromise solutions during plea negotiations which are inconsistent with the litigation strategy they will pursue if the case goes to trial. As one court has explained in the civil context:
+
+There exists a strong public interest in favor of secrecy of matters discussed by parties during settlement negotiations. . . . The ability to negotiate and settle a case without trial fosters a more efficient, more cost-effective, and significantly less burdened judicial system. . . . Parties must be able to abandon their adversarial tendencies to some degree. They must be able to make hypothetical concessions, offer creative quid pro quos, and generally make statements that would otherwise belie their litigation efforts.
+
+Goodyear Tire, 332 F.3d at 980. The same is no less true in the plea negotiation context particularly where a central component of the discussions and negotiations between counsel for Epstein and counsel for the USAO was to reach an agreement on conditions relating to 18 USC 2255 including certain waivers and other obligations of Epstein's NPA. The plaintiffs have contended that such provisions relating to 2255 are civil in nature, thus squarely implicating FRE 408 protections. The free availability in discovery to civil plaintiffs of communications made during the plea negotiation process has profound potential to chill and open communications during that process so crucial to the functioning of the criminal justice system in any criminal case which has potential to become a civil or regulatory matter as well. Such defendants will be loath to be fully forthcoming during plea discussions or communications and indeed, if the potential civil or regulatory consequences are sufficiently severe, may decline to enter into plea negotiations at all, if they must fear that their communications will be made available to civil plaintiffs in discovery, thus entirely defeating both the purpose and spirit of Rules 410 and 11(f).
+
+In addition, the communications made during the plea negotiation process contain fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particularly given the strong public policy in favor of confidentiality of plea/settlement
+
+Page No. 11
+
+negotiations, the disclosure of such information should be treated as falling within the selective waiver provisions of Fed. R. Evid. 502 and not be treated as an open-ended waiver of the attorney-client and work product privileges, and, if the discovery order is upheld as to request 10 a request for an order pursuant to FRE 502(d) mandating that the communications that led to the execution of a Non-Prosecution Agreement and communications regarding its implementation should be, to the extent they involve fact or opinion work product, not disclosed to third parties in civil litigation outside the criminal proceedings to which they relate. FRE 502(D) provides: ". . . a Federal court may order that the privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the court - -in which event disclosure is also not a waiver in any other Federal or State proceeding."
+
+The correspondence in question contained what would constitute paradigm opinion work product with the single caveat that the opinions of each counsel, Epstein's and the United States Attorney's were exchanged with each other pursuant to the overall expectation that they were safeguarded from disclosure by the policies of confidentiality that protect communications during settlement and plea negotiations. The requested communications include the views of Epstein's counsel in the criminal case regarding why a federal prosecution was inappropriate, why the federal statutes did not fit the alleged offense conduct, why certain of the alleged victims were not credible. It also includes Epstein's counsel's views on the limits and inapplicability of certain elements of 18 U.S.C. §2255, one of the principal causes of action in the Jane Doe cases. This opinion work-product should not be disclosed when it was incorporated into heartland plea negotiations that are accorded protection under the federal rules of evidence. It is the disclosure of such legal opinions — and not just their admissibility — that should be protected from a civil
+
+Page No. 12
+
+discovery request that lacked any statement as to why this information was even necessary to the fair litigation of the civil cases.
+
+Concomitantly, to the extent that the request is now limited to communications from the Government to Epstein, see DE 54, pgs 3 and 8, the narrowed request implicates the same concerns for the opinions, the work product, and the expectation of privacy of the United States Attorney or Assistant United States Attorney who authored the many letters received by counsel for Epstein. As such, to the extent that the Court is considering affirming any part of the Magistrate-Judge's opinion allowing request 10 that would result in the required disclosure of communications from the Government counsel to Epstein, that notice be provided to the United States Attorney so they may intervene to protect their opinion work product, assert their rights to confidentiality under FRE 408 and 410, and assert where appropriate their interests in grand jury secrecy and in the privacy rights of their witness who in at least one document are identified. The defendant requests that if the Court were considering allowing the disclosure of any portion of the communications sent by Epstein to the Government which are within the original request for production but apparently not plaintiff's latest filing, DE 354, pg 3, the Court first consider permitting the defendant to provide a privilege log that would identify specific portions of the correspondence that contains the opinion work product of counsel for Epstein and permitting leave to seek an order under FRE 502(d) that would protect such communications from disclosure to third parties such as requested in this matter.
+
+If the USA() cannot be compelled to release its investigation(s) and related work-product directly due to the protections of Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6, Epstein cannot be compelled to disclose same in violation of his constitutional rights? He cannot. Rules 408, and 410 all counsel strongly against the discoverability of such documents. The court is requested to reverse the
+
+Page No. 13
+
+Magistrate-Judge's order as to paragraph 10. Alternatively, the Court is requested to permit a privilege log that would be filed by Epstein's counsel — and if they so desire the Government particularizing the prejudice to their work product and to the values otherwise protected by FRE 408 and 410 on a document by document basis.
+
+Epstein also continues to maintain that the requested correspondence is protected under the Fifth Amendment, as it could furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him for a crime or provide the federal government with information that provides a lead or clue to evidence having a tendency to incriminate Epstein. See infra; Hoffman v. United States 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d at 1239; Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. at 159; and SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d at 494.
+
+As this court has recognized, the threat of criminal prosecution is real and present as Epstein remains under the scrutiny of the USAO, which is explained and/or acknowledged in the Court's Orders (DE 242, p.4 and 462, p.2). As this Court knows, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the USAO for the Federal Southern District of Florida . However, the NPA does not provide Epstein with any protection from criminal investigation or prosecution other than in the Southern District of Florida. As the court has acknowledged in its orders (e.g., DE 462), complaints in these related matters allege that Epstein both resided in and allegedly engaged in illegal sexual conduct in districts outside the Southern District of Florida, and that he allegedly lured economically disadvantaged girls to homes other than in Palm Beach. Thus, the fact that there exists a NPA does not mean that Epstein is free from a reasonable fear of future criminal prosecution. In fact, this court acknowledged that "[t]he danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this case is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary as required." (DE 242, p. 10).
+
+As such, in the event Epstein is required to produce information provided to him by the federal government — or provided by Epstein to the Government - that information could provide a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein of a crime outside the protections of the NPA. Given the nature of the allegations, to wit, a scheme and plan of sexual misconduct, this court should find it entirely reasonable for Epstein to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege as to request Number 10, especially since it is broad enough to encompass information that could violate Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privileges. Hubbell, supra. In responding to the request, Epstein would be compelled admit that such documents exist, admit that the documents were in his possession or control, and further admit that the documents produced were authentic. In other words, the very act of production of the category of documents requested would implicitly communicate "statements of fact." as well as authenticate the letters as genuine examples of communications that include disclosures made by Epstein's attorney i.e., his agent on his behalf, see Hubbell,supra; Hoffman,supra.
+
+The defendant requests that the Court order that the documents in question are protected by FRE 408 and 410, that if not they should be subject to a "selective waiver" order under FRE 502(d) given their inclusion of attorney opinion and fact work product that was only disclosed in reasonable expectation they would be solely used to further plea and settlement discussions. o the extent this court orders production of any of the requested materials, the information should first be produced in camera to determine what portions of the materials should be redacted to protect the attorneys' mental impressions and to assist the Court in making further determinations as to what information , should be protected by Federal Rules 408, 410, and 502. See supra. Again, as set forth in the Reply attached hereto as Exhibit "B", the USAO and the
+
+Palm Beach State Attorneys' Office should be put on notice that their underlying files are being requested by and through backdoor methods.
+
+### (b) Plaintiffs' Attorneys Already Have Much Of The Information They Seek Pursuant To This Improper Motion Practice And Have No Demonstrable Need For More
+
+Several depositions have occurred over the last 4 weeks wherein it appears Mr. IM already has the information he seeks responsive to these requests, which is likely the reason Mr. has not filed any affidavits supporting the specious arguments set forth in Plaintiff's Motions. As such, there is no substance or factual representations made by Plaintiff to support her argument. Plaintiff is wasting attorney time and judicial resources in her effort to obtain what she already has in her possession. For example, at a deposition of Mr. Epstein on February 17, 2010, the following exchange occurred:
+
+> Mr. The 87-page Palm Beach Police Department incident report where there are numerous underage females describing their interaction with Mr. Epstein at his house. I'm specifically reading from page 41 related to A.H., who was one of the victims he pled guilty to.
+
+> Mr. Pike: Is that the same document that you're seeking production of, in this same exact case?
+
+> Mr. I don't know what you're talking about. This is something from the state attorneys' file.
+
+It is clear from Mr. response above (attached as Exhibit "C") that he has the information from the Palm Beach Police Department and the information from the State Attorneys' file. This begs the question — if plaintiff already has the information she seeks, why is Plaintiff wasting valuable attorney time and judicial resources to obtain what is already in hand? See also Exhibits "D-1" and "D-2" and "E," a copy of the 89-page incident report marked as an Exhibit by Plaintiff's counsel at Detective Recarey's deposition as well as certain message pads Plaintiff claims was pulled from the residence at 358 Brillo Way.
+
+Page No. 16
+
+Moreover, at the deposition of AR on March 15, 2010, the following exchange occurred:
+
+Mr. Well, at some point in time what's been marked as defense Exhibit "1", you received a grand jury investigation target letter, correct?
+
+\*Si
+
+Mr. There's another message from 9/11/05 saying "I got a car for," and then the name is blotted out. The State Attorneys' Office blotted the names of minors out sometimes in their file. . . .
+
+\*\*It
+
+Once again, Mr. response above (attached as Exhibit "F") establishes that he has the information from both the Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorneys' file. In fact, as argued infra, Mr. IM has certain information from the Palm Beach Police Department, which resulted from various alleged "trash pulls" from a residence on Palm Beach (e.g., certain notepads).
+
+Finally, at the deposition of Detective Recarey of the Palm Beach Police Department, on March 19, 2010, the following exchange occurred:
+
+Mr. Kuvin: Okay. And what were the dates of the surveillance?
+
+Witness: [Referencing his Report] It appears she met with members of the B.S.F. unit, Burglary Strike Force. . . .
+
+\*\*\*
+
+Mr. Kuvin: [Referencing the Report] If we go down to page 40 in your report, first let me back up. . . .
+
+Mr. Kuvin: Okay. So the chain of custody which we have marked as Exhibit 5 shows that all the evidence you had in this case was given to the FBI. . . . Sm Exhibit "G".
+
+The undersigned was at Detective Recarey's deposition. Mr. Kuvin and Mr. had copies of various reports and also had copies of various message pads claimed to be "pulled" from Epstein's trash by the Palm Beach Police Department. See infra. It is clear from the
+
+Page No. 17
+
+deposition that opposing counsel has the information from the Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorneys' file. See also, infra for additional argument.
+
+# (i) Work-Product — Palm Beach State Attorneys' File
+
+Next, as to any information obtained from the State Attorney at any phase (request numbers 801), the State Attorney has not provided anything to Epstein or his attorneys. While the State Attorneys' file was made available for inspection, Jack Goldberger, Epstein's criminal lawyer, went over to the State Attorneys' Office and hand selected information from the file for copying, including certain witness interviews. See Exhibit "H" Affidavit of Jack Goldberger. Accordingly, the information hand selected by Mr. Goldberger falls under the work-product doctrine as production of same would reveal Mr. Goldberger's mental impressions, thought processes and strategy relative to the defense of Epstein. v. Florida Power & Company, 632 So.2d 696, 698 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1994)(even if individual documents are not workproduct, "the selection process itself represents defense counsel's mental impressions and legal opinions as to how the evidence in the documents relates to the issues and the defenses in the litigation"). Id. The information simply falls under the "highly protected category of opinion work-product." Id; see also Fla.R.Civ.Pro. 1.280.
+
+Also, Counsel for Jane Does 2-8 in the Federal companion cases apparently obtained a copy of the file retained by the Palm Beach State Attorneys' Office. It is reasonably believed that all Plaintiffs' attorneys in this action have extensive materials from the State Attorney and the Palm Beach Police Department pursuant to various public records requests. Certainly, Mr.
+
+Page No. 18
+
+is able make such public records requests or can subpoena the requested information, neither of which would implicate the work product privilege as outlined above.
+
+Here, the standard is a showing of a need to obtain the information, and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship. Metric Engineering, Inc. v. Small, 861 So. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(To show `need,' a party must present testimony or evidence demonstrating the material requested is critical to the theory of the requestor's case, or to some significant aspect of the case); Ashemimry v. Ba Nafa, 847 So.2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In addition, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(13)(3), does allow discovery of fact work product where the requesting party can show need and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means without undue hardship. Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. a, 821 So.2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(the showing of need and undue hardship necessary to overcome the work product immunity must include specific explanations and reasons). Again, Mr. fails to submit any affidavit or any other document meeting the above criteria.
+
+Additionally, this court should consider placing the Palm Beach State Attorney and the USAO on Notice that their investigative files are being requested. Since Plaintiff seeks information given by federal government and the state attorney to Epstein, including correspondence, Epstein reincorporates the arguments set out in his initial Rule 4 Appeal as that information is within the penumbra of the protections of Federal Rules of Evidence 408 and 410. Moreover, despite Plaintiff's contention, Federal Rule of Evidence 410 is applicable because negotiations did not end with a federal plea. Furthermore, Federal Rule of Evidence 408 is applicable given that 18 U.S.C. 2255 is quasi-civil remedy. Clearly, the information sought by Plaintiff has no evidentiary value - given that Plaintiffs have the raw materials and police reports and affidavits resulting from state investigation. Accordingly, there is a chance that the Palm
+
+Beach State Attorney and the USAO may not want to disclose their files for one reason or another.
+
+## (ii) Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order
+
+The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows, attached to the NPA is a list which delineates alleged victims. Once the NPA was made public, Judge Colbath, with the agreement of the Palm Beach Post, BradM, Esq. and Spencer Kuvin, Esq. agreed that the "list" would remain private. As such, Request for Production Numbers 7, 9 and 10 seeks information that may violate others third-party privacy rights in that certain names may be mentioned in correspondence, including those on the "list." As noted in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, at fn. 10 (1972):
+
+In Stanley, 394 U.S., at 564, 89 S.Ct., at 1247, the Court stated:'(A)Iso fundamental is the right to be free, except in very limited circumstances, from unwanted governmental intrusions into one's privacy." The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man.' [Citations omitted].
+
+The fundamental right of privacy is not only guaranteed under by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, but also under the Constitution of the State of Florida, Art. I, Sect. 23. As summarized by the Florida Supreme Court in Shaktman v. State, 553 So.2d 148, 150-51 (Fla. 1989):
+
+The right of privacy, assured to Florida's citizens, demands that individuals be free from uninvited observation of or interference in those aspects of their lives which fall within the ambit of this zone of privacy unless the intrusion is warranted by the necessity of a compelling state interest. In an opinion which predated the adoption of section 23, the First District aptly characterized the nature of this right.
+
+> A fundamental aspect of personhood's integrity is the power to control what we shall reveal about our intimate selves, to whom, and for what purpose.
+
+> Bryon, Harless, Schaffer Reid & Assocs., Inc. v. State ex rel, Schellenberg, 360 So.2d 83, 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), quashed and remanded on other grounds, 379 So.2d 633 (Fla.1980). Because this power is exercised in varying degrees by differing individuals, the parameters of an individual's privacy can be dictated only by that individual. The central concern is the inviolability of one's own thought, person, and personal action. The inviolability of that right assures its preeminence over "majoritarian sentiment" and thus cannot be universally defined by consensus.
+
+(Emphasis added).
+
+Clearly, the nature of the question would require Epstein to produce information that may identify third parties (including alleged victims), which would necessarily thwart such individuals' rights to assert their constitutional right of privacy as guaranteed under the United States and Florida Constitutions. See generally Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra at 454-455 (the right encompasses privacy in one's sexual matters and is not limited to the marital relationship). The Magistrate's Order did not address this issue.
+
+Federal law provides crime victims with rights similar to those afforded by the Florida constitution which includes, but is not limited to, "the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any pubic court. . .proceeding involving the crime. . . . ," "the right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding. . . . ," and "the right to be heard." 15 Fla. Jur.2d Crim.Proc. §1839; Fla. Stat. 960.0021. Based upon the foregoing, any alleged victim that may be identified in any of the requested information must first be notified, which means that this court must, at the very least, conduct an in camera inspection of any and all information to determine which alleged victim must be placed on notice that their identity may be revealed or redact their names in camera. Ss& also Fla. Stat. §794.03, §794.024 and §794.026. The right to privacy encompasses at least two different kinds of interests, the individual interests of disclosing
+
+Page No. 21
+
+personal matters and the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions.
+
+Favalora v. Sidaway, 966 So.2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
+
+Accordingly, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, and under applicable law, Defendant's assertion of the protections afforded under the 5'h, 6`h, and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution are required to be upheld. In addition, this Court must address the privacy rights of others as outlined above.
+
+### c. Jane Doe - Request Numbers 12 and 13
+
+Request No. 12: Personal tax returns for all years from 2002 through the present.
+
+Request No. 13: A photocopy of your passport, including any supplemental pages reflecting travel to locations outside the 50 United States between 2002 and 2008, including any documents or records regarding plane tickets, hotel receipts, or transportation arrangements.
+
+Response to Request Numbers : Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce documents relevant to this lawsuit without waiving my Fifth Amendment constitutional rights and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution; overly broad.
+
+As set forth in more detail in DE 282 and 283, which were provided to the court in camera and which the court considered in other Rule 4 Appeals, Epstein cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to his financial history and condition without waiving his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Asking for Epstein's personal tax returns is financial in nature and it is confidential, proprietary and seeks information much of which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated
+
+to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Importantly, the Magistrate did not make a ruling on relevancy as to the personal tax returns, and the Plaintiff has not met the burden of establishing a "compelling need" for the tax returns.
+
+Producing the specified information, in full, would result in testimonial disclosures that would communicate statements of fact and would require Epstein to produce the returns and thereby "stipulate" to their genuiness, their existence, his control of the records, and their authenticity as his executed tax returns even though his possession of such records are by no means a foregone conclusion. Again, the information sought relates to potential federal claims violations. See DE 282 and 283, in camera, which the court permitted sua sponte. Production would therefore constitute a testimonial admission of the genuineness, the existence, and Epstein's control of such records, and thus presents a real and substantial danger of selfincrimination in this case, in other related cases and as well in areas that could result in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128.
+
+The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's personal tax returns must be produced because they are allegedly a mandatory part of a civil regulatory scheme and have assumed some public aspect. (DE 462, p.12) However, "required records" are ordinarily records collected by highly regulated business (e.g., physicians) wherein the records themselves have assumed public aspects which render them analogous to public documents. See In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641- 643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). Usually, these documents are known to more than the filer and the agency in which the document(s) were filed (i.e., known to other persons of the general public). Id. Even though the IRS may have certain returns, they remain confidential under 26 U.S.C. §6103
+
+from any disclosures and are therefore different than a regulated/public record that can be accessed by the public. In Trudeau v. New York State Consumer Protection Bd., 237 F.R.D. 325 (N.D.N.Y. 2006), the court maintained that "[r]outine discovery of tax returns is not the rule but rather the exception." Id. at 331. The Court went on to note that [f]or nearly the past thirty-five years, tax returns have been considered `confidential,' pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6103." Id. Because of the principle of confidentiality, it further noted, "courts in the Second Circuit have found personal financial information to be presumptively confidential or cloaked with a qualified immunity," and must, therefore, "balance the countervailing policies of liberal discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil procedure against maintaining the confidentiality of such documents." Id.
+
+To achieve that balance, courts in the Second Circuit have developed a "more stringent" standard than that set forth in the rules. To order disclosure of tax returns, a court must find that "the requested tax information is relevant to the subject matter of the action" and that "there is a compelling need for this information because the information contained therein is not otherwise readily available." Id. The Magistrate's Order makes no such finding in the instant matter. In fact, the burden of showing compelling need is on the party seeking discovery, but once a compelling need has been found, the party whose tax return information has been requested has the burden to "provide alternative sources for this sensitive information. Id. If the requested information is available from alternate sources, disclosure should not be compelled. Potential alternate sources to which the court pointed were gathering the information through deposition or disclosure in an affidavit by the requested party of net worth, wealth, and income. Id. at 331-32. See Barton v. Cascade Regional Blood Services, 2007 WL 2288035 (W.D.Wash. 2007)("Tax returns are confidential communications between the taxpayer and the government [citing
+
+§6103] and although not privileged from discovery there is a recognized policy against unnecessary public disclosure The Court finds no compelling need which overcomes this recognized policy"). Courts have broadly construed these provisions to embody a general federal policy against indiscriminate disclosure of tax returns from any source. Federal Say. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Krueger, 55 F.R.D. 514-15 (N.D. Ill. 1972)("it is the opinion of this court that [§6103] reflect[s] a valid public policy against disclosure of income tax returns. This policy is grounded in the interest of the government in full disclosure of all the taxpayer's income which thereby maximizes revenue. To indiscriminately compel a taxpayer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); Kg also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "public policy against unnecessary disclosure [of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns").
+
+In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at •2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and that courts should be reluctant to order disclosure during discovery. Citing, Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Energy Gathering, Inc., 2 F.3d 1397, 1411 (5th Cir. 1993); DeMasi v. Weiss, Inc., 669 F.2d 114, 119-20 (3d Cir. 1982)(noting existence of public policy against disclosure of tax returns); Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9'h Cir. 1975). The court in Pendlebury agreed that parties seeking the production of tax returns must demonstrate (1) relevance of the tax returns to the subject matter of the dispute and (2) a compelling need for the tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available. Id. at \*2; see also Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001);
+
+v. Hallgarten & Co., 34 F.R.D. 482, 483-84 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). Thus, before the Court can order production of the requested returns in this matter, the Plaintiff must satisfy the "relevance" and "compelling need" standards. The Magistrate's Order fails to address the "relevancy" standard and Plaintiff fails to provide same with supporting argument and case law, and the Plaintiff fails to delineate any "compelling need" or availability of net worth from other sources (e.g., a stipulation as to net worth, which is certainly an alternative means). To the extent that the Court determines that the tax returns are relevant and that there is a compelling need for at least their disclosure of Epstein's wealth for punitive damage purposes, Epstein through his attorneys, as per the discussion at the status conference on May 7, 2010, agreed to a confidential stipulation that his net worth is in excess of nine figures. Such a stipulation more than satisfies any necessity for the disclosure of the tax returns or any additional net worth information. See e.g., Myers v. Central Florida Investments, Inc., 592 F.3d 1201 (l i th Cir. 2010)(reasoning that a compensatory award of \$103,622.09 and a punitive damage award of \$506,847.78 for 5 years of sexual harassment and sexual touching was reasonable). Unfortunately, the parties were unable to reach a agreement.
+
+Myers clearly demonstrates that Epstein's offer to agree to a net worth in excess of \$50,000,00 is reasonable in light of the allegations made by Jane Doe as compared to the allegations in Myers. Moreover, allowing such discovery at this juncture goes against the grain and the law in that Plaintiff has not made a reasonable showing establishing that she will recover on her claims or that if she did such a compensatory damage recovery could possible implicate punitive damages in excess of Epstein's offer to stipulate.. v. Estaleiro Itaiai S/A. 541 F.Supp.2d 1344. 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2008)(The court cannot apply Rule 26 and allow Plaintiff to obtain discovery she seeks without any prior showing of a reasonable basis for recovery). See
+
+Page No. 26
+
+also Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and Fla. Stat. 768.72; Gallina v. Commerce And Industry, Ins., 2008 WL 3895918 (S.D. Ha. 2009)(unless liability for punitive damages is established at trial, the discovery sought is not relevant).
+
+In Gallina the court held that in light of the proprietary of the financial worth information sought, and the statutory protections against discovery of such information, it was recommended that the court defer financial discovery until it is deemed necessary and that production of such financial information not occur until the ". . . final pretrial conference. . . or when it becomes apparent that punitive damages can be awarded." Id. at \*5. Since bifurcation is required in the instant matter, W.R. Company v. Waters, 638 So.2d 502 (Fla. 1994), it is reasonable and consistent with the applicable law, that any tax returns not be produced until such time as it becomes apparent at the first stage of the trial that punitive damages will be an issue.
+
+To the extent this court orders production of tax returns and to the extent Epstein's personal tax returns contain such information, same should be redacted and subject to heightened confidentiality order pursuant to the court's previous orders. However, this can only be done subsequent to an in camera hearing wherein this court can make a ruling on relevancy, production, redaction and confidentiality; but only after the Plaintiff shows a compelling need. In addition, for the reasons outlined herein including, but not limited to, the discovery abuses and bad faith litigation tactics that Epstein has been the subject of at the hands of Scott Rothstein and his-co-conspirators, any tax returns must be redacted to preserve confidently and to prevent further abuses. See supra.
+
+Further, Epstein's complicated business transactions have no relevancy to this lawsuit and, therefore, evidence of same should not be produced. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This request, if
+
+answered, may result in compelled production and/or testimonial communications from Epstein regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. Responding to this and other related inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege.
+
+Accordingly, any compelled testimony that provides a "lead or clue to a source of evidence of such [a) crime" is protected by Fifth Amendment. SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d at 494. Questions seeking "testimony" regarding names of witnesses, leads to phone or travel records, or financial records that would provide leads to tax or money laundering or unlicensed money transmittal investigations are protected. les also Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)("the right against self-incrimination may be invoked if the answer would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute for a crime").
+
+Based upon the above admissions, it is clear that Plaintiff now seeks information that may provide a link in the chain of evidence used to prosecute Epstein including, but not limited to the significant fact that target letters and subpoenas were issued relating to certain financial offenses. See Lg., DEs 282 and 283 submitted in camera and U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989)(disclosing materials to the district court does not have the legal effect of terminating a privilege thereby allowing parties to disclose documents in camera and make that in camera request — which request is made in the instant Rule 4 Appeal for which Defendant is awaiting the court's response). As a result, DEs 282 and 283 (in camera) and other related Orders must be analyzed to reach the correct legal conclusion. The court must be cognizant of the allegations in
+
+Page No. 28
+
+the related cases regarding sexual misconduct with and abuse, exploitation, and sexual battery of alleged minors. For example:
+
+In this and the other civil actions, the Plaintiffs reference federal and state criminal statutes in an attempt to allege claims ranging from sexual battery to intentional infliction of emotional distress, to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422, Chapter 117 – “Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes,” to a cause of action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 – which creates a civil remedy for personal injuries where a plaintiff can show a violation of specified criminal statutes. Most importantly, the lynchpin for the exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) is the use of “any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce”. Thus, facially, an essential condition of any allegation of this statutory offense is the use of a facility of interstate commerce during which use there was persuasion, inducement, enticing, or coercing of an underage person to engage in prostitution or sexual activity. As more fully discussed, infra, contested request numbers 12 asks that Epstein to make a testimonial disclosure of information regarding the availability to him of such interstate facilities (e.g., the tax returns could list assets such as planes) and thus would constitute a link in the chain of evidence that could potentially expose him to the hazards of self-incrimination as to 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) violations. Likewise, other Jane Does have contended that they are entitled to 18 U.S.C. 2255 damages based on Epstein’s violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) a separate federal criminal statute that prohibits “a person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States...for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual activity”. As more fully discussed, infra, contested request number 13, by seeking testimonial disclosures regarding Epstein’s passport and dates Epstein traveled to and from the State of Florida, would constitute a link in the chain of evidence that could potentially expose him to the hazards of self-incrimination as to 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) violations.
+
+Both 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) and 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) were amongst the target offenses of a joint FBI-United States Attorney investigation further demonstrating the extent to which Epstein’s refusal to respond to each request is, as required, based on a specific apprehension of a compelled disclosure providing a link in the chain of evidence adverse to him as required by Hoffman v United States, 341 US 479, 486 (1951). Epstein, in fact, can deny the occurrence of the assaults alleged and still maintain the safe harbor of the 5th Amendment.2 See Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (1991).
+
+---
+
+2 See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - “[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court.”); 5 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny – Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (“...court must treat the defendant’s claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial.”). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. – “... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not
+
+Plaintiffs also allege that Epstein had a plan and scheme (which) reflected a particular pattern and method" in the alleged recruiting of girl's to come to Epstein's Palm Beach mansion and give him "massages" in exchange for money. Plaintiffs also allege that Epstein "sexually assaulted" them, and that Epstein "maintains his principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. [REDACTED]'s and Palm Beach, FL." They further allege "Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. [REDACTED]'s." The nature of the allegations are serious, and state clearly that the alleged assaults occurred in Florida, New York and in St. [REDACTED]'s. See e.g., Second Amended Complaints of Jane Does 2-8. and DE 485, p.18.
+
+As this Court knows, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with United States Attorney's Office for the Federal Southern District of Florida. The terms and conditions of the NPA also entailed Epstein entering into a Plea Agreement with the State Attorney's Office, Palm Beach County, State of Florida. By its terms, the NPA took effect on June 30, 2008. As well, pursuant to the NPA, any criminal prosecution against Epstein is deferred as long as the terms and conditions of the NPA are fulfilled by Epstein. The federal grand jury investigation against Epstein is held in abeyance i.e. it is not concluded with finality until the NPA expires by its terms in late 2010 and as long as the USAO determines that Epstein has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal prosecution against Epstein by the USAO continues presently and through late 2010. The USAO possesses the right to declare that the agreement has been breached, give Epstein's counsel notice, and attempt to move forward with the prosecution. Moreover, the NPA does not provide Epstein with any protection from criminal investigation or prosecution in any federal district other than the Southern District of Florida. The Second Amended Complaints and Plaintiff Response at DE 485, p.18 include averments that Epstein both resided in and engaged in illegal sexual conduct in districts outside the Southern District of Florida. In other words, the fact that there exists a NPA does not mean that Epstein is free from future criminal prosecution, which the Magistrate Judge's Order also acknowledged. (DE 242, p.4) In fact, the Order acknowledged that "[t]he danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this case is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary as required." (DE 242, p. 10). For the reasons set forth in Epstein's Rule 4 Appeal and herein, that same ruling should be reached relative to Request Numbers 12 and 13 given the close nexus between the information requested and the pivotal jurisdictional requisites of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)(the requirement of interstate travel i.e. travel from one of Epstein's out of state residences to Florida or from Florida to one of such residences.
+
+---
+
+precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief" which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege.
+
+Accordingly, it is clear that Plaintiff and her counsel seek this information not to further their civil case, but to gain information to aid in the future prosecution of Epstein in direct violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. In fact, the Mermelstein and Horowitz firm was quoted in the Palm Beach Post stating, among other things, that the book sold to undercover agents could open the door to future prosecution of Epstein. As such, Plaintiffs' counsels' intention is clear — to use the civil discovery process to attempt to further prosecute Epstein. See htto://iessicaarbour.blogsoot.com/2010/03/horowitz-discusses-possibility-othtml. Moreover, Mr. himself admitted at his own deposition to repeated disclosures to a variety of media outlets including, but not limited to, the NY Post and Vanity Fair. Accordingly, Epstein's 5'h Amendment rights in this regard should be sustained.
+
+Furthermore, as set forth in a Civil Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit "I" attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees at the firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler, P.A., deliberately engaged in a pattern of racketeering that involved a staggering series of gravely serious obstructions of justice, actionable frauds, and the orchestration and conducting of egregious civil litigation abuses that resulted in profoundly serious injury to Jeffrey Epstein, including substantial attorneys' fees and costs. In short, Rothstein and his co-conspirators forged Federal court orders and opinions and, among other things, staged a series of depositions that were unrelated to any principled litigation purpose but instead designed to discover extraneous private information about Epstein or his personal and business associates (including well-known public figures) in order to defraud investors and support extortionate demands for payment from Epstein. The misconduct featured the filing of legal motions and the pursuit of a civil litigation strategy that was unrelated to the merits or value of their clients' cases and, instead, had as its improper purpose the furthering of Rothstein's misrepresentations and deceit to third-party
+
+investors. As a result, Epstein was subject to abusive investigatory tactics, unprincipled media attacks, and unsupportable legal filings and discovery abuses. Since Plaintiff's counsel is formerly of RRA and due to the fact that certain information may contain the names of thirdparties, that information (should this court order production of same after an in camera inspection) must be redacted to secure the names of unsuspecting third-parties. Moreover, Michael Fisten (formerly an employee of RRA and now an employee/independent contractor of Mr. firm) acted, upon information and belief, as a broker or middleman who staged regular meetings during which false statements were made about the number of cases/clients that existed or RRA had against Epstein. For this reason alone, such information should be redacted in order to protect those unsuspecting third parties.
+
+## (i) Request Number 13
+
+As to Request Number 13, Defendant provided this court with sufficient argument at DE 282 and DE 283 detailing why the production of information showing Epstein's whereabouts could provide a link in the chain of evidence regarding: (a) Epstein's air travel within the United States and Foreign Territories; (b) Epstein's communications with others relating to or referring to females coming into the United States from other countries; and (c) Epstein's personal calendars and schedules. Given that the essential proof of an allegation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) would include travel records, schedules regarding trips and locations, flight records, calendars, and transportation arrangements, the court found that Epstein had made a more particularized showing because producing such information "could reveal the availability to him and/or use by him of interstate facilities and thus would constitute a link in the chain of evidence that could potentially expose (Epstein] to the dangers of self incrimination." (DE 293, p.6) See infra, regarding private aircraft.
+
+The Magistrate's Order (DE 462) provides that Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege does not extend to his passport because its existence is known to the government or is a "foregone conclusion." Id. at p. 11. First, the magistrate's order presupposes that Epstein has all his passports from 2002 up through to the current date and that the government has an exact copy of same. Second, the Order presupposes that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol ("CPB") keeps a record and/or has maintained records of Epstein's travel and whereabouts from 2002 up through to the current date. Third, assuming Epstein traveled internationally, the Order presupposes that the CPB has records of all of Epstein's destinations and that other countries have shared that information with the CBP. In short, the order would require Epstein to produce documents that he may or may not have 8 years of passport information thus requiring him to "admit" to the genuiness and possession of the documents produced.
+
+For instance, CBP now offers "Global Entry" to enter the United States by kiosk. However, it is unclear whether the Global Entry kiosk records and copies the pages of a traveler's destinations outside of the United States, or does it simply record exit from and entry back into the United States?3 Moreover, it is unclear whether CBP maintains the Sample Customs Declaration Form for any period of time, which form sets out (i.e., if filled out) the countries visited by a traveler.4 This Court cannot Compel Epstein to produce information in violation of his Fifth Amendment by simply stating that Epstein's passport is "known to the government" or is a "forgone conclusion." In fact, from the websites listed herein, any CBP documents or forms filled out by a traveler take on a complete different form when compared to an original passport, which is initially issued with blank pages. This Court would be hard-
+
+3 ate Lg., htto://www.customs.gov/xo/cgoy/travetnistedjaveler/alobal entry/
+
+4 Sec Lg., hno://www.customs.govixo/cstovItravel/vacationisamnle declaration form.xml
+
+Page No. 33
+
+pressed to find that the CBP has an exact copy of every page of every traveler's passport. Obviously, this would create more document management than CBP anticipates on its website.
+
+Moreover, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §122.2, pilots of private aircraft are required to electronically transmit passenger and crew manifest information for all flights arriving into and/or departing out of the United States. As this court knows, Mr. .= has conducted extensive discovery, has questioned individuals as to whether Epstein owns private aircraft and has obtained certain flight manifests. Arguably, if such a procedure were followed in Epstein's case pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §122.2, then Epstein's passport would arguably take on a substantially different form when compared to the information maintained by the CBP (i.e., information that was electronically transferred). Under that circumstance, CBP would not have an exact copy of Epstein's passports. Accordingly, the assumptions made in the Magistrate's Order have serious Fifth Amendment implications in that the exact information sought is not "known to the government" and is not a "forgone conclusion" in that the government is not likely to have an exact copy of Epstein's passports.
+
+Again, Plaintiff's request for Epstein's passport "reflecting travel to locations outside the 50 United States between 2002 and 2008, is no different from the requests this Court has already ruled upon and sustained Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege in response thereto. (DE 292). In summary, this court reasoned that:
+
+"[l]n this and the other civil actions, Plaintiff's allege that Epstein violated certain federal and state criminal statutes in an attempt to make claims against Epstein ranging from sexual battery to intentional infliction of emotional distress. The lynchpin for the exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), which figures in some of the complaints filed, is `the use of any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce' and the analogous essential element of 18 U.S.C. §2423(b), which also figures in some of the Complaints, is gravel[s] in interstate commerce or travels into the United States or . . . travels in foreign commerce.' Accordingly, requiring Epstein to provide responses. . .would in essence be compelling him to provide assertions of fact, thereby admitting that
+
+> such documents existed and further admitting that the documents in his possession or control were authentic.
+
+As such, if you believe Plaintiff's footnote 4 at (DE 210), responding to this request could very well implicate Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege. The allegations of Epstein's use of interstate commerce and travel and any compelled production is clearly a violation of Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights.5 Based upon the arguments set forth in DE 283 (which is incorporated herein), this Court sustained Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege. That same ruling should apply here. (DE 293). If not, this court may be requiring Epstein to produce a log of his travels, which this Court already sustained under the Fifth Amendment.
+
+Plaintiff must also show that the requested information is relevant to the disputed issues of the underlying action. See Young Circle Garage, LLC. v. Koppel, 916 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Daisy Worldwide. Inc., 702 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden and, in doing so, has also failed to show any substantial need for the documents.
+
+### IV. Jane Does 2-8 - Request Number 1
+
+As to Request number one of Jane Doe 2-8s' request for production, it provides:
+
+Request No. 1: All Federal and State income tax returns, including all W-2 forms, 1099 forms and schedules, for tax years 2003-2008.
+
+Accordingly, for the same reasons expressed herein relative to Jane Doe's request for tax records, same should be denied. Epstein adopts and reincorporates the arguments set out above and the relief requested herein relative to Jane Doe's request for tax returns as if same was fully set forth in this section.
+
+Wherefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court issue and order:
+
+Once again, a ruling on these issues cannot be made in a vacuum. This court must, as it has done in the past, consider the other related cases and the allegations made therein when considering whether a response to a particular discovery requests would implicate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. acg DEs 242, 283 and 462.
+
+- a. granting the relief requested above as to Jane Doe and Jane Does 2-8;
+- b. finding that the danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in these cases relative to the above requests is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary;
+- c. sustaining Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege as it relates to the above requests and denying Plaintiffs' Motions in that regard;
+- d. reversing the Magistrate's Order (DE 462, 480 and 513) relative to Request Numbers 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 (Jane Doe) and Request Number 1 (Jane Does 2-8) and entering an amended order sustaining Epstein's objections to the Magistrate's Order as to those specific requests and not requiring him to produce information relative to same;
+- e. sustaining Epstein's arguments as stated above and ordering that FRE Sections 408, 410 and 502 provide substantive reasoning to sustain Epstein's arguments relative to requests numbers 7, 9 and 10 including, but not limited to, the entering of an order as provided for under FRE 502(d), denying the requests as irrelevant and as barred by Fed. R. Evid. 408 and 410 and issuing a selective waiver order under Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) thereby applying the selective waiver provision of Rule 502(d) to the information exchanged between Epstein's attorneys, the USAO and the State Attorney during the criminal stage of said proceedings. Alternatively, and only to the extent this court orders production of any information, this court should put the USAO and the State Attorney on notice before any disclosure to give each entity an opportunity to raise objections to protect their work-product and attorney-mental impressions and to allow Epstein and the USAO the opportunity to submit objections and a privilege log outlining why the content of the documents sought have no relevance and should be barred from production under Fed. R. Evid. 408, 410 and 502(d). This should occur only after an in camera hearing, after this court determines what portions of the requested documents should be redacted as privileged and only after this court ensures that each and every document produced is the subject of a heightened-confidentiality order where disclosure will result in the disclosing party being held in contempt of court;
+- f. likewise, if this court rules that any of the information requested herein should be produced (e.g., Requests Numbers 12 and 13 (tax returns and passport – Jane Doe) and Request Number 1 (tax returns-Jane Doe 2-8)), it shall only do so after an in camera hearing allowing the documents to be reviewed and placed on a privilege log outlining why the content of those documents have no relevance and establishing why the danger of disclosure is more prejudicial than probative, and after this court determines what portions of the requested documents should be redacted as privileged including, but not limited to, what portions of the tax returns should be redacted due to the confidentiality interests relative to detailed information and financial tax data which was provided to the IRS within the context of the protections of 26 U.S.C. 6103. Again, the foregoing should only occur after this court ensures that each and every document
+
+> produced is the subject of a heightened-confidentiality order where disclosure will result in the disclosing party being held in contempt of court;
+
+> g. accepting the offered stipulation of net worth as identified above in lieu of any net worth discovery being produced; and
+
+h. for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
+
+Respe itted, By: MI AE J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296
+
+#### Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this a day of April, 2010.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162
+
+rcrit@bciclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 inpikeq\_hbelclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
+
+#### Certificate of Service
+
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey E stein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+
+Suite 2218
+
+Miami, FL 33160
+
+305-931-2200
+
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+
+ssm@sexabuseattomey.com
+
+ahorowitz@sexabuseattomey.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs
+
+In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-
+
+80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-
+
+80994
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
+
+Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+
+250 Australian Avenue South
+
+Suite 1400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
+
+561-659-8300
+
+Fax: 561-835-8691
+
+jaizeso®bellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein
+
+, Jaffe, Weissing, Fistos &
+
+Lehrman, PL
+
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+
+Suite 2
+
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+
+brad@pathloiustice.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893, .
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+
+Pro Hac Vice
+
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+
+801-585-5202
+
+801-585-6833 Fax
+
+cassellpglaw.utah.edu
+
+Co-counsel Jane Doe
+
+Isidro M. M, Esq.
+
+Law Firm, P.A.
+
+224 Datura Street, Suite 900
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561-832-7732
+
+561-832-7137 F
+
+isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Counsellor:Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
+
+Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
+
+Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
+
+25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+
+Miami, FL 33130
+
+305 358-2800
+
+Fax: 305 358-2382
+
+riosefsberg®podhurst.com
+
+kezell@oodhurst.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749607/EFTA02749607.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749607/EFTA02749607.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..06a1fd484445af1f681652935da06e2edbaa1466
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749607/EFTA02749607.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1691 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749607.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 37,
+ "chars": 79650,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 19.06,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 196.452,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.98565673828125,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.98565673828125,
+ 100.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 196.452,
+ 100.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFENDANT'S, CONSOLIDATED RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS \nOF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDERS DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), (DE 4801 \nAND APRIL 1, 2010 WE 513), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND \nMEMORANDUM OF LAW",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 74.05199999999999,
+ 333.71999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.19580078125,
+ 333.71999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.19580078125,
+ 390.363037109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 74.05199999999999,
+ 390.363037109375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "I. Introduction",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 250.308,
+ 514.3499999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 356.6458740234375,
+ 514.3499999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 356.6458740234375,
+ 528.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 250.308,
+ 528.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "II. Procedural Background",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 230.724,
+ 545.13
+ ],
+ [
+ 374.96514892578125,
+ 545.13
+ ],
+ [
+ 374.96514892578125,
+ 561.363037109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 230.724,
+ 561.363037109375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(a) Jane Doe",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 274.788,
+ 76.94999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 347.5302429199219,
+ 76.94999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 347.5302429199219,
+ 92.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 274.788,
+ 92.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(b) Jane Does 2-8",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 263.772,
+ 186.3
+ ],
+ [
+ 359.68035888671875,
+ 186.3
+ ],
+ [
+ 359.68035888671875,
+ 203.2230224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 263.772,
+ 203.2230224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "III. The Requests For Production, Argument And Memorandum Of Law",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 379.89
+ ],
+ [
+ 501.8511047363281,
+ 379.89
+ ],
+ [
+ 501.8511047363281,
+ 397.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 397.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "a. Jane Doe - Requests Numbers 7, 9 and 10",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 176.25599999999997,
+ 407.43
+ ],
+ [
+ 430.82415771484375,
+ 407.43
+ ],
+ [
+ 430.82415771484375,
+ 424.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 176.25599999999997,
+ 424.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(b) Plaintiffs' Attorneys Already Have Much Of The Information They Seek \nPursuant To This Improper Motion Practice And Have No Demonstrable Need For More",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 133.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.4105224609375,
+ 133.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 533.4105224609375,
+ 165.35302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 165.35302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(i) Work-Product \u2014 Palm Beach State Attorneys' File",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 151.776,
+ 187.11
+ ],
+ [
+ 451.50335693359375,
+ 187.11
+ ],
+ [
+ 451.50335693359375,
+ 204.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 151.776,
+ 204.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(ii) Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 112.608,
+ 134.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 491.27642822265625,
+ 134.46
+ ],
+ [
+ 491.27642822265625,
+ 151.4730224609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 112.608,
+ 151.4730224609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "c. Jane Doe - Request Numbers 12 and 13",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 243.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 432.10882568359375,
+ 243.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 432.10882568359375,
+ 258.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 258.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "(i) Request Number 13",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 247.24800000000005,
+ 355.59000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 376.25323486328125,
+ 355.59000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 376.25323486328125,
+ 372.42352294921875
+ ],
+ [
+ 247.24800000000005,
+ 372.42352294921875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IV. Jane Does 2-8 - Request Number 1",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 33,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 195.84,
+ 451.9800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 433.8120422363281,
+ 451.9800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 433.8120422363281,
+ 467.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 195.84,
+ 467.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 35,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 245.412,
+ 283.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 358.95050048828125,
+ 283.5
+ ],
+ [
+ 358.95050048828125,
+ 297.7330627441406
+ ],
+ [
+ 245.412,
+ 297.7330627441406
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 35,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 245.412,
+ 656.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 358.95050048828125,
+ 656.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 358.95050048828125,
+ 670.8630142211914
+ ],
+ [
+ 245.412,
+ 670.8630142211914
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 64
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 58
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 75
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 62
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 84
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 64
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 54
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 62
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 66
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 89
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 62
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 73
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 75
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 81
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 62
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 57
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 73
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 64
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 62
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 54
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 31,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 70
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 32,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 33,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 65
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 34,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 35,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 73
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 36,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 129
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 64
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 60
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749607"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749644/EFTA02749644.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749644/EFTA02749644.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b789a13506315d6e3a6e048880669a2e57082af
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749644/EFTA02749644.md
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-C1V-80119-MARK/a
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## NOTICE OF CLARIFICARTION
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Notice of Clarification in Connection with Defendant's Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal (DE 545).
+
+1. The following sentence on page 25 shall be clarified, and/or corrected to read as follows: "To the extent that the Court determines that the tax returns are relevant and that there is a compelling need for at least their disclosure of Epstein's wealth for punitive damage purposes, Epstein, through his attorneys, as per the discussion at the status conferen on May 7, 2010, agreed to enter a confidential stipulation that his net worth within nine figures."
+
+> By. MI HA 1 Flor ar #617296
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 13th day of May, 2009
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: \_\_\_\_\_
+ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
+Florida Bar No. 224162
+rcrit@bclclaw.com
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
+Florida Bar #617296
+mpike@bclclaw.com
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER &
+COLEMAN
+515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+561/842-2820 Phone
+561/515-3148 Fax
+*(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)*
+
+**Certificate of Service**
+**Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein**
+**Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ [REDACTED]**
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
+Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+Suite 2218
+Miami, FL 33160
+305-931-2200
+Fax: 305-931-0877
+ssm@sexabuseattorney.com
+ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
+*Counsel for Plaintiffs*
+*In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993,
+08-80994*
+
+Brad [REDACTED], Esq.
+[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos
+& Lehrman, PL
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+*Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.
+08-80893*
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+*Pro Hac Vice*
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 jaaesa©bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax casselltQlaw.utah.edu Co-counsgtfiLflaintiff Jane Doe M. Law Firm, Esq. P.A. 224 Datum Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F isidrouarcia@bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 rjosefsberiz@podhurst.com kezell@tpodhurst.com Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Case
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749644/EFTA02749644.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749644/EFTA02749644.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..273a4e07d4196613714cfb07775431cfefc3c982
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749644/EFTA02749644.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749644.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 3353,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 7.07,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.2651672363281,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 416.2651672363281,
+ 102.80352783203125
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 102.80352783203125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "NOTICE OF CLARIFICARTION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 221.54399999999998,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 399.61297607421875,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 399.61297607421875,
+ 378.80352783203125
+ ],
+ [
+ 221.54399999999998,
+ 378.80352783203125
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 250.308,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 362.304,
+ 75.33
+ ],
+ [
+ 362.304,
+ 88.28999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 250.308,
+ 88.28999999999999
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/ [REDACTED]",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 193.392,
+ 432.54
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.0559999999999,
+ 432.54
+ ],
+ [
+ 421.0559999999999,
+ 473.84999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 193.392,
+ 473.84999999999997
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 150
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749644"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749647/EFTA02749647.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749647/EFTA02749647.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f94e33cdaae8934a0205272fba8f4f8e51927492
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749647/EFTA02749647.md
@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRa
+
+Notice of Supplemental Authority on Plaintiff Jane Doe's Motion for an Order to Show Cause and for an Order to Compel and Incorporated Memorandum of Law IDE 138J
+
+## EXHIBIT A
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+WRITTEN MONTHLY REPORT
+
+Officer's Name: \_\_\_\_\_
+For Month Ending: \_\_\_\_\_
+Date/Time submitted: \_\_\_\_\_
+
+YOUR NAME: Jaffrey Epstein
+DC#: W35755
+
+YOUR RESIDENCE ADDRESS: (include Name of Subdivision, Apartment Complex and Number, Mobile Home Park and Lot Number, if applicable):
+
+358 El Brillo Way
+Palm Beach, FL 334480
+(Provide physical location - NOT Post Office Box)
+
+TELEPHONE No. 501-655-7626
+CELLULAR TELEPHONE No. 501-10014569
+
+PAGER No. \_\_\_\_\_
+
+Vehicle Make/Model/Year/Tag #: \_\_\_\_\_
+
+EMPLOYER: FSF
+
+SUPERVISOR'S NAME: Darren Indyke
+EMPLOYER'S ADDRESS: 250 S. Australian Ave Suite 1404
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+EMPLOYER'S TELEPHONE No. 260 0084
+
+CELLULAR TELEPHONE No. \_\_\_\_\_
+
+PAGER No. \_\_\_\_\_
+
+EMPLOYER EMAIL: \_\_\_\_\_
+YOUR TOTAL MONEY EARNED MONTHLY:
+\$ 10 K + \_\_\_\_\_ (Gross Amount)
+
+Full time 20 Part-time \_\_\_\_\_ Hours Worked \_\_\_\_\_
+Additional (2nd ) employment information: \_\_\_\_\_
+
+List full names, ages, and your relationship to all persons who resided at your residence during this month:
+SL-63 - SA-31 - V.C-55, N.P., M.P.C. - 25 7/1/in, R.P., 26/in
+Staff
+
+Have you consumed alcoholic beverages? YES NO
+Have you used or bought illegal drugs or controlled substances? YES NO
+Have you attended educational, vocational classes or mental health, drug, alcohol, therapy, or self-improvement programs? YES NO
+(If yes, circle which one) YES NO
+Have you been arrested or had any contact with law enforcement during the last month? YES NO
+If yes, explain what happened on separate sheet of paper, attached to report.
+If you went into debt for any reason, explain: \_\_\_\_\_
+
+If not working, give reason and source of income: \_\_\_\_\_
+If you have any questions or problems to discuss with your Officer, explain: \_\_\_\_\_
+
+If monetary obligation owed, amount paid this month: \$ \_\_\_\_\_
+
+Receipts are available through your probation officer. DO NOT SUBMIT CASH OR PERSONAL CHECKS!
+Make money order payable to the Department of Corrections.
+
+If monetary obligation owed and no payment made, give reason and date when payment will be made: \_\_\_\_\_
+
+Official Use ONLY
+Signature of Officer Receiving this report: RECEIVED
+Date WMR Received: JAN 05 2010
+Date WMR Due: 15-4
+Comments: E.O.S
+
+I certify the above to be true and complete:
+Your Signature: [Signature]
+Mailing Address: Stan as abn
+City: \_\_\_\_\_
+State: \_\_\_\_\_ Zip: \_\_\_\_\_
+E-Mail Address: \_\_\_\_\_
+(if applicable)
+
+1 1) YOUR NAME: Doh W, 1r( YOUR RESIDENCE ADDRESS: (include Name of Subdivision. Apartment Complex and Number. Mobile Home Park and "Number, if applicable): re t -L Or "7".4, EA oil
+
+Officer's Name: \_\_\_\_\_
+ For Month Ending: \_\_\_\_\_
+ Date/Time submitted: \_\_\_\_\_
+
+## STATE OF FLORIDA For Month Ending: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS I Date/Time submitted: WRITTEN MONTHLY REPORT
+
+(Provide physical location / —NOT Post Office Box) TELEPHONE No. - CELLULAR TELEPHONE No. ( - 4 0 ( 'LW PAGER No.
+
+Vehicle Make/Model/Year/Tag #: \_\_\_\_\_
+
+EMPLOYER: SUPERVISOR'S NAME: -2 4-1('' EMPLOYER'S ADDRESS: AnrA.ti% Ps pl"., ILA. )3 V( EMPLOYER'S TELEPHONE No. -S ib—00 (9 CELLULAR TELEPHONE No. PAGER No. EMPLOYER EMAIL: YOUR TOTAL MONEY EARNED MONTHLY: \$ \* do IC (Gross Amount)
+
+Full time Part-time Hours Worked Additional (2id) employment information:
+
+List full names, ages, and your relationship to all persons who raided at your residence during this month: —Yak L 0)1'464 — sµ.3 - Z6 &aim\* /Yachter," thr -51 L Y P - -9\* • kJ • 2.?' 0 \_0 4
+
+Save you consumed alcoholic beverages? Have you used or bought illegal drugs or controlled substances? Have you attended educational, vocational classes or mental health, drug, alcohol, therapy, or self-improvement programs? (If yes, circle which one) Have you been arrested or had any contact with law enforcement during the last month? If yes, explain what happened on separate sheet of paper, attached to report. If you went into debt for any reason, explain: YES ❑ e3
+
+If not working, give reason and source of income: If you have any questions or problems to discuss with your Officer, explain:
+
+If monetary obligation owed, amount paid this month: S
+
+Receipts are available through your probation officer. DO NOT SUBMIT CASH OR PERSONAL CHECKS! Make money order payable to the Department of Corrections.
+
+If monetary obligation owed and no payment made, give reason and date when payment will be made:
+
+| Official Use Only: | |
+|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|
+| Signature of Officer Receiving Report: | |
+| Date WMR Received: _____ 2:15
Date WMR Due: _____ 2:12
Comments: 2:30 PM 2:20
| |
+
+I certify the above to Your Signature: Mailinritddress: 1' 71 & lt; City: Vat" (int& Gam, State: C <— Zip: 3n t E-Mail Address: 000P f›-vd /CA— ( if applicable)
+
+| Officer's Name: Johns |
+|------------------------------|
+| For Month Ending: _____ |
+| Date/Time submitted: _____ |
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA
+DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
+WRITTEN MONTHLY REPORT
+
+YOUR NAME: Jeffrey Epstein
+ DC#: W35755
+ YOUR RESIDENCE ADDRESS: (include Name of Subdivision, Apartment Complex and Number, Mobile Home Park and Lot Number, if applicable):
+358 El Brillo Way
+Palm Beach, FL 33480
+
+EMPLOYER: FSF
+ SUPERVISOR'S NAME: Subjic
+ EMPLOYER'S ADDRESS:
+250 S. Australian Ave. Suite 1404
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+ EMPLOYER'S TELEPHONE No. 3600084
+
+(Provide physical location - NOT Post Office Box)
+ TELEPHONE No. 655-7020
+ CELLULAR TELEPHONE No. 601-4569
+ PAGER No. \_\_\_\_\_
+
+CELLULAR TELEPHONE No. \_\_\_\_\_
+ PAGER No. \_\_\_\_\_
+ EMPLOYER EMAIL: \_\_\_\_\_
+ YOUR TOTAL MONEY EARNED MONTHLY:
+ \$ +10/00 (Gross Amount)
+
+Full time X Part-time \_\_\_\_\_ Hours Worked \_\_\_\_\_
+ Additional (2nd ) employment information: \_\_\_\_\_
+
+List full names, ages, and your relationship to all persons who resided at your residence during this month:
+Nabio Marcini, SA - 31 Frank, FL - Frind 22, S.L.B. - 65, D.L. Leugh 50
+
+Have you consumed alcoholic beverages? YES NO
+ Have you used or bought illegal drugs or controlled substances?
+ Have you attended educational, vocational classes or mental health, drug, alcohol, therapy, or self-improvement programs?
+ (If yes, circle which one)
+ Have you been arrested or had any contact with law enforcement during the last month?
+ If yes, explain what happened on separate sheet of paper, attached to report.
+ If you went into debt for any reason, explain: \_\_\_\_\_
+ If not working, give reason and source of income: \_\_\_\_\_
+ If you have any questions or problems to discuss with your Officer, explain: \_\_\_\_\_
+
+If monetary obligation owed, amount paid this month: \$ -
+
+| Receipts are available through your probation officer. DO NOT SUBMIT CASH OR PERSONAL CHECKS! Make money order payable to the Department of Corrections. |
+|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+
+If monetary obligation owed and no payment made, give reason and date when payment will be made: \_\_\_\_\_
+
+Official Use Only:
+ Signature of Officer Receiving Report: [Signature]
+ Date WMR Received: \_\_\_\_\_
+ Date WMR Due: \_\_\_\_\_
+ Comments: 1035AM 3/11/10
+
+I certify the above to be true and complete:
+ Your Signature: [Signature]
+ Mailing Address: 358 El Brillo
+ City: PP
+ State: FL Zip: 33480
+ E-Mail Address: \_\_\_\_\_
+ (if applicable)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749647/EFTA02749647.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749647/EFTA02749647.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fcb24862cb587dc4f727da36689fe6697e4817d5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749647/EFTA02749647.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,273 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749647.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 8265,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 11.71,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "EXHIBIT A",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 173.808,
+ 326.4293518066406
+ ],
+ [
+ 451.173583984375,
+ 326.4293518066406
+ ],
+ [
+ 451.173583984375,
+ 389.75408935546875
+ ],
+ [
+ 173.808,
+ 389.75408935546875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WRITTEN MONTHLY REPORT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 214.62400000000002,
+ 54.269999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.552,
+ 54.269999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 391.552,
+ 91.53
+ ],
+ [
+ 214.62400000000002,
+ 91.53
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "STATE OF FLORIDA For Month Ending: \nDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS I Date/Time submitted: \nWRITTEN MONTHLY REPORT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 226.49999999999997,
+ 50.82244873046875
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.3888549804688,
+ 50.82244873046875
+ ],
+ [
+ 534.3888549804688,
+ 89.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 226.49999999999997,
+ 89.1
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WRITTEN MONTHLY REPORT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 224.826,
+ 52.650000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 401.778,
+ 52.650000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 401.778,
+ 89.91
+ ],
+ [
+ 224.826,
+ 89.91
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 461
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 160
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 64
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Form",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749647"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749651/EFTA02749651.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749651/EFTA02749651.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3da99d659d66b504192dfa118688c17f20fc39a6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749651/EFTA02749651.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRa
+
+Notice of Supplemental Authority on Plaintiff Jane Doe's Motion for an Order to Show Cause and for an Order to Compel and Incorporated Memorandum of Law IDE 138J
+
+## EXHIBIT B
+
+From: Tama Beth Kudman Itama©tkudmanlaw.com] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 4:10 PM To: Beth Williamson Subject: Re: Regarding: Epstein - Depo of Jean Luc Brunel
+
+I have .ust been informed that my client will be out of the country until the end of March. Please ask Mr to call me to discuss this.
+
+Thank you
+
+Sent from my iPhonc Tama Beth Kudman
+
+On Jan 25, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Beth Williamson wrote:
+
+Dear Ms. Kudman:
+
+My name is Beth. I am assisting Brad in the Epstein matters. I just wanted to follow-up on the voicemail I left you. I understand your client Jean Luc Brunel will be available the first two weeks of February for deposition. Please provide me dates of availability as soon as possible, as calendars arc filling.
+
+Thank you,
+
+Beth Williamson, FRP
+
+Florida Registered Paralegal
+
+M, Jaffe, Weissing,
+
+Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
+
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+
+954-524.2820
+
+954-524-2822 fax
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749651/EFTA02749651.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749651/EFTA02749651.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d811766b12c06226fcfabf8651a0ebf679e7242b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749651/EFTA02749651.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749651.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1169,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.94,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "EXHIBIT B",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 173.808,
+ 232.93792724609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 451.4455871582031,
+ 232.93792724609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 451.4455871582031,
+ 296.87054443359375
+ ],
+ [
+ 173.808,
+ 296.87054443359375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Beth Williamson",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 31.563999999999997,
+ 46.980000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 130.95970153808594,
+ 46.980000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 130.95970153808594,
+ 62.30853271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 31.563999999999997,
+ 62.30853271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749651"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749653/EFTA02749653.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749653/EFTA02749653.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..85db328d2d77061f1e1305e78a6020ba5b85a370
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749653/EFTA02749653.md
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+Vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY ON PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW EDE 4831
+
+Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby gives notice of filing portions of the probation file of Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in connection with the above referenced Motion for Order to Show Cause and to Compel the Deposition of Jean Luc Brunel [DE 483].
+
+On March 10, 2010 Plaintiff filed her Motion for an Order to Show Cause and for an Order to Compel [DE 483] requesting entry of an Order directed to Jean Luc Brunel and his counsel ordering them to show cause why they should not be held in contempt, for sanctions, and for an Order compelling Jean Luc Brunel to appear for deposition.
+
+Plaintiff's counsel recently obtained Epstein's probation file that contains documents that further corroborate Plaintiff's position that Brunel has not remained out
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA'
+
+of the country as Brunel's counsel suggested, but has in fact been staying with Epstein much of 2010, if we are to believe the records Epstein provided to probation.
+
+The portions of the probation file, specifically the Written Monthly Reports from December 2009 through February 2010 are attached hereto as Exhibit "A." A section of the Written Monthly Report requires Defendant to "List full names, ages, and your relationship to all persons who resided at your residence this month" in the middle section of the form.
+
+Defendant identifies Jean Luc Brunel in his probation papers as residing with him within the period of December 2009 to February 2010, when Ms. Kudman represented him to be out of Florida.
+
+As indicated in our previous pleading, Mr. Brunel was served for deposition, and his counsel Ms. Kudman represented that she would produce him for deposition in Florida.
+
+She ultimately reneged, saying that her client told her that he was in France indefinitely and would not be returning to the United States, a representation known to be false.
+
+In an email dated January 25, 2010, Ms. Kudman responds to a request for dates for her client's deposition by writing, "I have just been informed that my client will be out of the country until the end of March." (Email attached here to as Exhibit "B")
+
+Again, while it is not believed that Ms. Kudman made the false representation intentionally, and it is more likely that Mr. Brunel simply made that false representation
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA'
+
+to his attorney, it is impossible for the undersigned to know with any degree of certainty exactly who participated in this plan to obstruct Jane Doe's discovery.
+
+As such, Plaintiff files her supplemental authority and requests the relief previously sought.
+
+DATED: May 17, 2010
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+AFFE, WEISSING, , FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+and
+
+Paul G. Cassell Pro Flac Vice 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail : cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 17, 2010 I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+> s/ J. J.
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA
+
+## SERVICE LIST
+
+Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Jgoldberger@agwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bciclaw.com
+
+Isidro Manual isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack iph@searcylaw.com •
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike MPike@bciclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawyerswillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
+
+Adam D. Horowitz ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein ssm@sexabuseattorney.com
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749653/EFTA02749653.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749653/EFTA02749653.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a70485d9fc639d4bdab69e0876857432de91a75b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749653/EFTA02749653.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749653.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 4547,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.96,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 71.0675048828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.520751953125,
+ 71.0675048828125
+ ],
+ [
+ 410.520751953125,
+ 99.54998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 201.348,
+ 99.54998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY ON PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S MOTION \nFOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL AND \nINCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW EDE 4831",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 76.5,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.5249633789062,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.5249633789062,
+ 433.29998779296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 76.5,
+ 433.29998779296875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 225.216,
+ 564.5699999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.0013122558594,
+ 564.5699999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.0013122558594,
+ 580.3000030517578
+ ],
+ [
+ 225.216,
+ 580.3000030517578
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 123.12
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.14093017578125,
+ 123.12
+ ],
+ [
+ 350.14093017578125,
+ 138.80352783203125
+ ],
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 138.80352783203125
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 69
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749653"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749657/EFTA02749657.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749657/EFTA02749657.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2551d411fd83601d61d113d81cc25f553a05a17
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749657/EFTA02749657.md
@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO JANE DOE'S RESPONSE TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE DEPOSITION OF STORY COWLES
+
+Defendant, JEFFREY EPSETIN ("Epstein"), submits his Reply to Plaintiff, Jane Doe's Response to Epstein's Motion for Protective Order Regarding the Deposition of Story Cowles ("Response") [DE #540], and states:
+
+- 1. On April 29, 2010, Epstein filed his Motion for Protective Order Regarding the Deposition of Story Cowles ("Motion") [DE #536] seeking to prohibit the deposition of Story Cowles.
+ - 2. Jane Doe filed her Response [DE #540] to said Motion on May 7, 2010.
+- 3. Jane Doe's Response, and the affidavit of her counsel, M, attached as Exhibit A to said Response, is replete with unsupported factual assertions, conjecture, misrepresentations and patently false statements.
+
+4. The thrust of Jane Doe's Response is that she should be able to depose Story Cowles ("Cowles") because: (1) Cowles visited Epstein in jail with a "third party visitors," such as and which eliminated any confidentiality; (2) Epstein may have discussed transfer of assets with Cowles; (3) Cowles may have discussed the cases against Epstein with ==; (4) Cowles has observed and communicated with visitors coming to and from Epstein's home; and (5) Epstein may have discussed plans to flee the jurisdiction with Cowles. None of the foregoing assertions are supported by any credible evidence.
+
+5. First, there is nothing to suggest that Cowles visited Mr. Epstein in jail with or , let alone had privileged communications in their presence. See Exhibit I to Jane Doe's Response. Jane Doe make this untenable conclusion because of a visitor's log which indicates that visited Mr. Epstein on some of the same days Cowles visited Mr. Epstein. A cursory review of the Exhibit I will show that Cowles often visited Mr. Epstein on multiple occasions in a single day. There is nothing to even indicate that was at the jail at the same time as Cowles. Indeed, are listed on a separate visitor's log which does not indicate the time they arrived and does not contain the names of any attorneys or paralegals.
+
+6. Nevertheless, filed an affidavit affirmatively stating that "Many times, Story Cowles was visiting Epstein while another third party visitor was present, such as Epstein's co-conspirators and " despite the fact he was not there and there exists absolutely no evidence to support such a statement. See Affidavit attached as Exhibit A to Response a Aff.") '13. Describing assertion as a misrepresentation is generous.
+
+7. Next, Jane Doe asserts Epstein "likely discussed" hiding his assets and "moving them to the Channel Islands" with Cowles, "as Jane Does [sic] has heard." See Response at 2. Similarly, Jane Doe contends that Epstein "may have discussed" plans to flee the jurisdiction. Id. at 4. Jane Doe advances absolutely no support for this statement nor did she file an affidavit attesting to what she "has heard" regarding alleged asset transfers. This is nothing more than pure conjecture.
+
+8. Jane Doe also asserts that Cowles has recently been running errands for Epstein and that she "understands" Cowles is at Epstein's home nearly every day. le& Response at 3. Jane Doe goes on to speculate that "[c]ertainly, in this capacity, Cowles has personally observed, and communicated with, the visitors that come and go from Epstein's home, all potential witnesses." Id. Not unlike the other assertions in her Response, Jane Doe cites no evidence to support her conclusions. Accordingly, the Court should disregard these unsupported statements in determining Epstein's Motion. See Frasher v. Fox Distributing of S.W. Fla., Inc., 813 So. 2d 1017, 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that an affidavit "must not be based on hearsay or the plaintiff's subjective beliefs but rather on the plaintiff's personal knowledge of the defendant's actions," citing Unique Caterers. Inc. v. Rudv's Farm Co., 338 So. 2d 1067, 1071 (Ha. 1976)).
+
+9. Other false, speculative and/or unsupported statements in Brad include: affidavit
+
+- a. Cowles visited Epstein in jail by stating that he was either a "Paralegal," and "Attorney" or "Public Defender." 5.m Aff. ¶4. While a few of the 159 entries in the visitor's log have ow es' name followed by "attorney" or "public defender," there is no evidence that Cowles ever made any such representations to jail officials. Indeed the visitor's log also lists Epstein's attorneys Jack Goldberger and MIE Weinberg as "PD" (presumably public defender) on the same nage where they are listed as attorneys. See Exhibit Ito Motion, Part 2 of 3, 8/21/08 Entries. It was obviously a mistake. If M' was intending to imply that
+
+Cowles made misrepresentations to jail officials, any such implication is belied by the facts.
+
+- b. On information and belief, Cowles was made to sign a confidentiality agreement with Epstein. See Aff. 115. What information? cites none.
+- c. Cowles is at Epstein's house almost every day of the week with or Epstein or both and knows of and interacted with the visitors to Epstein's house. See Aff. 1¶16, 18. Has personally been conducting surveillance Mr. Epstein's house? Has he personally observed Cowles "interacting" with visitors to Epstein's house? If not, how can swear to such a statement?
+- d. sole employment is working for Epstein, Cowles is her boyfriend that has spent ni hts with her one to parties with her, talked privately with her and and he has even taken a trip around the world with See Aft ¶17. Again, make these sworn assertions without any substantiation.
+
+10. The Court should disregard affidavit in determining Epstein's Motion. The assertions in his affidavit are just as unsupported and speculative as the statements in Jane Doe's Response. Jane Doe and use these groundless statements to create the false impression that Cowles has discoverable information. Yet, as demonstrated herein, fails to cite any evidence to support his assertions.
+
+II. In addition, Jane Doe maintains that Cowles should be required make the representation that he has not discussed the cases against Epstein with "under oath at a deposition." See Response at 3. Yet Cowles submitted an affidavit under oath on that very subject. Requiring him to appear at a deposition to confirm what he has already attested to under oath, in his affidavit, would be a waste of the parties' time.
+
+12. Last, tries to justify going back on his agreement not to depose Mr. Cowles by stating he "did not know Mr. Cowles full role or involvement with Jeffrey Epstein." However, it is obvious that knew of the relationship between Cowles and
+
+as he was seeking to depose Cowles, in part, to discover whereabouts. See Aff. ¶¶6-8. He also states that if ' testified truthfully and completely then there would be no need for Mr. Cowles testimony." Id. ¶9. Given that defendant in companion cases, it should hardly have been a surprise to is a would invoke her Constitutional Rights under the Fifth Amendment. Ultimately, is attempting to make excuses for going back on his word not to depose Cowles. The Court should not condone such double dealing.
+
+13. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Epstein's Motion and prohibit the deposition of Cowles.
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 17th day of May, 2010:
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: /s/ Jack Alan Goldberger. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Florida Bar No. 262013 Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 iagesqabellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
+
+## Certificate of Service
+
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/
+
+Stuart S. Memelstein, Esq. Brad Esq.
+
+Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. , Jaffe, Weissing, Fistos &
+
+Menne}stein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ssm@sexabuseattorney.com ahorowitz@sexabuseattornev.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiffs' In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
+
+Miami, FL 33130
+
+305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382
+
+rjosefsberg@oodhurst.com
+
+kezell@podhumt.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff
+
+Lehrman, PL
+
+425 N. Andrews Avenue
+
+Suite 2
+
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+
+Phone: 954-524-2820
+
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+
+brad&athtojustice.com
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893
+
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
+
+Pro Hac Vice
+
+332 South 1400 E, Room 101
+
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+
+801-585-5202
+
+801-585-6833 Fax
+
+casselln@law.utah.edu
+
+Co-counsel for PlaintW Jane Doe
+
+Isidro M. , Esq.
+
+Law Firm, P.A.
+
+224 Datum Street, Suite 900
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+561-832-7732
+
+561-832-7137 F
+
+isidrozamia@bellsouth.net
+
+Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749657/EFTA02749657.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749657/EFTA02749657.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f19b97d44962cfef935b8ea0d8eeaa768abaf322
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749657/EFTA02749657.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,353 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749657.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 6,
+ "chars": 9407,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.86,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 189.945,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 401.9395751953125,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 401.9395751953125,
+ 100.8580322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 189.945,
+ 100.8580322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO JANE DOE'S RESPONSE TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR \nPROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE DEPOSITION OF STORY COWLES",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 79.596,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 516.7160034179688,
+ 362.07
+ ],
+ [
+ 516.7160034179688,
+ 391.8580322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 79.596,
+ 391.8580322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 241.80300000000003,
+ 319.95000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 354.45050048828125,
+ 319.95000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 354.45050048828125,
+ 335.6080322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 241.80300000000003,
+ 335.6080322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Certificate of Service",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 243.00900000000004,
+ 610.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 354.7979431152344,
+ 610.74
+ ],
+ [
+ 354.7979431152344,
+ 625.8580169677734
+ ],
+ [
+ 243.00900000000004,
+ 625.8580169677734
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 70
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 66
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 103
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749657"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749663/EFTA02749663.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749663/EFTA02749663.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54fff2f832ac02352cd142490e64505994ad7080
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749663/EFTA02749663.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff, vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
+
+## ORDER
+
+Upon Plaintiffs' Jane Doe Nos. 2-8' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Response to Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal of Portions of The Magistrate's Order Dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462) and April 1, 2010 (DE 513), and good cause being shown, it is hereby
+
+ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have an enlargement of time of two (2) days until May 28, 2010, to respond to the Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal.
+
+DONE AND ORDERED in at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this day of , 2010.
+
+DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
+
+Copies furnished to: Counsel of record
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749663/EFTA02749663.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749663/EFTA02749663.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..64394bb5bf5950a04c7fbea2d416033d509964da
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749663/EFTA02749663.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749663.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 884,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.77,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 205.02,
+ 99.63
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 99.63
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.95098876953125,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 205.02,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 280.296,
+ 375.03000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.80316162109375,
+ 375.03000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 330.80316162109375,
+ 389.60302734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 280.296,
+ 389.60302734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749663"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749664/EFTA02749664.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749664/EFTA02749664.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..556731a68fa78e4204dab1028ab5c9a2e19eb998
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749664/EFTA02749664.md
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRAa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
+
+## PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES 2-8' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S RULE 4 APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDERS DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 480) AND APRIL 1, 2010 (DE 513)
+
+Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8, by and through undersigned counsel, file this Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Response to Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal of Portions of The Magistrate's Orders Dated February 4, 2010 (DE 480) and April 1, 2010 (DE 513), and state as follows:
+
+- I. Defendant Epstein filed his Rule 4 Appeal on May 12. 2010. Plaintiffs' Response is presently due to be filed on May 26, 2010.
+- 2. Plaintiffs request a brief enlargement of time of two (2) days, until and including May 28, 2010, to file their Response.
+ - 3. Plaintiffs' counsel requires an enlargement of time due to demands on Plaintiffs'
+
+counsel in this and other cases and matters, including A.G.D. et al. v. Siegel case no. 09-CV-80959, U.S. District Court, S.D. Fla; and Doe v. Waterford Kids Academy, Inc., case no. 09-CA-10377, Orange County Circuit Court.
+
+- 4. Plaintiffs bring this Motion in good faith and not for purposes of undue delay.
+- 5. Pursuant to S.D.FIa.L.R. 7.1(A), Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with counsel for Defendant regarding the relief sought in this Motion, who has advised Plaintiffs' counsel that Defendant has no objection to the enlargement of time requested.
+
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request an enlargement of time of two (2) days, until and including May 28, 2010, to file their Response to Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal.
+
+Dated: May 26, 2010. Respectfully submitted,
+
+By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) ssm@sexabuseattomey.com Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I hereby certify that on May 26, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+/s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein
+
+## SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. igoldberger@agwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bciclaw.com
+
+James bedwards@rra-law.com
+
+Isidro Manuel isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
+
+Jack jph@searcylaw.com U
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike MPike@bciclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawyerwillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749664/EFTA02749664.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749664/EFTA02749664.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..198d26fef36f612e7574881702d54e52647872b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749664/EFTA02749664.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,281 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749664.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 3259,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.85,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.56707763671875,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.56707763671875,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 127.4830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES 2-8' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR \nENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S \nRULE 4 APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDERS \nDATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 480) AND APRIL 1, 2010 (DE 513)",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 113.83200000000001,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 499.01910400390625,
+ 387.98999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 499.01910400390625,
+ 445.863037109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 113.83200000000001,
+ 445.863037109375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 223.38,
+ 71.92889404296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.619384765625,
+ 71.92889404296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 389.619384765625,
+ 85.93353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 223.38,
+ 85.93353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST \nDOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN \nUnited States District Court, Southern District of Florida",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 157.28400000000002,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 455.16455078125,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 157.28400000000002,
+ 113.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749664"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749668/EFTA02749668.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749668/EFTA02749668.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8fab027af07c7a5330bc49d03ba0132fff7be55a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749668/EFTA02749668.md
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+JANE DOE,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+Vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al.
+
+Defendant.
+
+CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRa
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
+
+## PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S PROTECTIVE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL
+
+Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby files this protective response to Defendant's Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Orders Dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462), (DE 480) and April 1, 2010 (DE 513), with Incorporated Objections and Memorandum of Law (doc. #454).
+
+Jane Doe had understood that she had fully briefed the issues raised by the defendant's pleading when on March10, 2010, she filed her response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (doc. #485). It appears, however, the defendant Epstein may view his "consolidated" appeal as requiring some sort of new response from Jane Doe. If so, Jane Doe wishes to make clear that she continues to
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRa
+
+assert the responses she raised in her earlier response and hereby files this protective response incorporating by reference all of her earlier arguments.
+
+Jane Doe would also note she filed her request for these documents on July 20, 2009. Through a seemingly endless series of motions, all of which have been rejected on the merits, Epstein has blocked turning over tax returns and other documents that the Government has already seen on Fifth Amendment grounds for more than ten months. Jane Doe's trial date is less than two months away on July 19, 2010, and she needs the requested items soon to prepare for trial.
+
+Jane Doe attempted to negotiate a resolution to these issues with counsel for Epstein, but the negotiations failed.
+
+Jane Doe therefore respectfully requests that the Court promptly order production of these documents to her.
+
+DATED: May 27, 2010
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+JAFFE, WEISSING, , FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+and
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRa
+
+Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 27, 2010 I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing.
+
+J.
+
+## SERVICE LIST
+
+Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
+
+Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Jgoldberger@aqwpa.com
+
+Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bciclaw.com
+
+Isidro Manual isidrogarciaftbellsouth.net
+
+Jack iph@searcylaw.com •
+
+Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
+
+Michael James Pike
+
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRIa
+
+MPike@bcIclaw.com
+
+Paul G. Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu
+
+Richard Horace Willits lawyerswillits@aol.com
+
+Robert C. Josefsberg gosefsberg@podhurst.com
+
+Adam D. Horowitz ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com
+
+Stuart S. Mermelstein ssm@sexabuseattornev.com
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749668/EFTA02749668.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749668/EFTA02749668.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..061f5847f36783ce01d6f6ab12fc56591f4cb1c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749668/EFTA02749668.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,261 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749668.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 4,
+ "chars": 3551,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.99,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 196.35000000000005,
+ 104.302
+ ],
+ [
+ 398.87481689453125,
+ 104.302
+ ],
+ [
+ 398.87481689453125,
+ 133.56353759765625
+ ],
+ [
+ 196.35000000000005,
+ 133.56353759765625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S PROTECTIVE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION \nFOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.42500000000001,
+ 412.898
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.5042114257812,
+ 412.898
+ ],
+ [
+ 526.5042114257812,
+ 442.18353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.42500000000001,
+ 442.18353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 218.96,
+ 263.772
+ ],
+ [
+ 376.09112548828125,
+ 263.772
+ ],
+ [
+ 376.09112548828125,
+ 278.68353271484375
+ ],
+ [
+ 218.96,
+ 278.68353271484375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "SERVICE LIST",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 255.255,
+ 450.826
+ ],
+ [
+ 340.8321533203125,
+ 450.826
+ ],
+ [
+ 340.8321533203125,
+ 466.56353759765625
+ ],
+ [
+ 255.255,
+ 466.56353759765625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02749668"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749672/EFTA02749672.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749672/EFTA02749672.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5ccc546490e41956e0c8c7361b5d44349dee63eb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-epstein-80119/EFTA02749672/EFTA02749672.md
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRa
+
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+
+Plaintiff,
+
+vs.
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+
+Defendant.
+
+Related Cases:
+
+08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092,
+
+### PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES 2-8' MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S RULE 4 APPEAL
+
+Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8 ("Plaintiffs"), by and through undersigned counsel, file this Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Orders (DE 480 and DE 513) directing Defendant to produce his income tax returns, as follows:
+
+# Introduction
+
+Defendant appeals the Magistrate Judge's Orders (DE 480 and DE 513) compelling Defendant to produce income tax returns and related forms and schedules. He fails, however, to demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge's decision as to tax returns is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The applicable case law establishes that the tax returns are not protected from discovery by the Fifth Amendment privilege under the act of production doctrine, or alternatively, that they fall within the "required records" exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege.
+
+The tax returns are indisputably relevant in these cases, particularly as to Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages, and given the Defendant's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in
+
+blanket fashion to all requests for net worth discovery, there is a compelling need for this discovery. Even if Plaintiffs could not demonstrate a compelling need for the tax returns in discovery, under applicable Eleventh Circuit precedent and reported cases in this District, Plaintiffs would be entitled to this discovery under the broad relevance standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Finally, there is no basis to delay this discovery, as the tax returns are relevant to punitive damages, which is an important, current issue in these cases. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's request that the Magistrate Judge's Orders as to Defendant's tax returns be affirmed and that Defendant be ordered to produce the tax return discovery requested by Plaintiffs.
+
+### Argument
+
+### I. DEFENDANT HAS BURDEN TO SHOW THAT MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS OR CONTRARY TO LAW
+
+In seeking reversal of the Magistrate Judge's Order as to discovery of tax returns, it is the Defendant's burden to show that the order is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law". 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Absent such a showing, the Magistrate Judge's decision "shall not be disturbed." Emmisive Energy Corp. v. Novatac, Inc., 2009 WL 2834841 •1 (S.D. Fla. 2009). In the instant appeal, Defendant has not shown that the Magistrate Judge's Order to produce tax returns is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
+
+### II. THE ACT OF PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE
+
+The Plaintiffs served the following document request in discovery, to which Defendant asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege:
+
+Request No. 1: All Federal and State income tax returns, including all W-2 forms, 1099 forms and schedules, for tax years 2003-2008.
+
+The Magistrate Judge rejected the Defendant's privilege assertion as to tax returns. (De 480, pp. 8-9). In so holding, the Magistrate Judge applied the act of production doctrine set forth in Fisher v. United States 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976) and United States v. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 35- 36 (2000). As noted by the Magistrate Judge, "Defendant cannot reasonably and in good faith argue that in producing these documents to Plaintiff he will somehow be incriminating himself." (Order, p. 9). Yet, Defendant argues just that. In Hubbell the Supreme Court made express reference to tax returns in discussing documents that cannot be protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege under the act of production doctrine:
+
+> [T]he fact that incriminating evidence may be the byproduct of obedience to a regulatory requirement, such as filing an income tax return, maintaining required records, or reporting an accident, does not clothe such required conduct with the testimonial privilege.
+
+120 U.S. at 2043, 530 U.S. at 35 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis supplied). Accord United States v. Hammes 3 F.3d 1081, 1083 (7th Cir. 1993) ("[w]e reject [defendant's] compulsory selfincrimination claim because the government may use voluntarily filed tax returns against a defendant without violating the Fifth Amendment"). See also Garner v. United States, 96 S.Ct. 1178, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) (holding that disclosures in tax returns are not compelled incriminations and may be used as evidence in criminal prosecution); Ebav, Inc. v. Digital Point Solutions. Inc. 2010 WL 147967 \*8 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (holding that a person cannot incriminate himself by turning over a document already in the government's possession); Federal Savings and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Hardee, 686 F. Supp 885 (N.D. Fla. 1988) (holding that personal income tax returns and supporting schedules are not protected by the "act of production" doctrine under Fisher).
+
+As an alternative to finding that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply because the act of producing documents is not testimonial and communicative, courts have invoked the "required records" exception to the act of production doctrine. See Federal Saving & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Rodrigues 717 F. Supp. 1424, 1427 (N.D. Cal 1988) ("required records" exception is a distinct basis to deny Fifth Amendment privilege alternative to the "foregone conclusion" rationale under Fisher). The "required records" exception defeats the Fifth Amendment privilege where: "(1) because of the public aspect of the required records the individual admits little of significance by their production; and (2) by doing business in an area where the government requires record keeping, an individual may be deemed to have waived the Fifth Amendment privilege as to the production of those records." In re Grand Jury Subpoena 21 F.3d 226, 229 (8th Cir. 1994).
+
+Defendant contends that the "required records" exception does not apply to tax returns because they cannot be accessed by the public. This is wrong, however, as the "required records" exception requires only that there be "public aspects" to the documents at issue. Id. Numerous courts that have addressed this precise issue have found that tax returns have "public aspects". See Rodrigues, 717 F. Supp. at 1426-27 (citing cases); accord Doe v. United States, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983).1 Accordingly, the "required records" exception applies to the production of tax returns. In Rodrigues the Court denied the Fifth Amendment privilege for the act of producing tax returns under the "required records" exception, noting that "records filed with a public body pursuant to a valid regulatory scheme have been held to have public aspects." Id. at 1427. Accordingly, the fact that federal tax returns cannot be accessed by the general public does not aid the Defendant. Accord Resolution Trust Corp. v. =, 794 F. Supp. 1, 3 (D.D.C. 1992).
+
+Thus, there are two alternative grounds for holding that Defendant's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege to production of tax returns is invalid: (1) the tax returns are in the
+
+ x27; Defendant further appears to argue that the "required records" exception should be limited to "highly regulated business (e.g., physicians)", citing In re Dr. John Doe 97 F.R.D. 640, 641-643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). In Dr. John Doe, however, the Court held contrary to Defendant's assertion and consistent with the case law cited herein stating, "[w]e agree that some of these records (e.g. W-2 and other tax forms) may indeed fall within the required records exception." Id. at 644 (ordering that Dr. Doe comply with subpoena for W-2 forms).
+
+possession of the government, their existence is a foregone conclusion, and there is no risk of "implicit authentication" by Defendant's production of these documents; or (2) tax returns fall within the "required records" exception to the act of production doctrine, and are thus not protected by the Fifth Amendment. Under either of these grounds, the Defendant's tax returns are not privileged and must be produced in discovery.
+
+### H. THERE IS NO HEIGHTENED BURDEN FOR DISCOVERY OF TAX RETURNS
+
+Defendant asserts that there is a heightened burden on a party seeking discovery of tax returns, requiring that party to show not only relevance, but also that "a compelling need for the tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available." (Appeal, p. 24). However, in the Eleventh Circuit this heightened burden has been rejected. "[T]he Eleventh Circuit does not require a showing of compelling need before tax information may be obtained by a party in discovery." Bellosa v. Universal Tile Restoration, Inc. 2008 WL 2620735 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co. 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 1997)); accord U.S. v. Certain Real Property 444 F.Supp. 2d 1258 (S.D.FIa. 2006)• Platypus Wear. Inc. v. Clarke Modet & Co., 2008 W.L. 728540 (S.D. Ha. 2008); Preferred Care Partners Holding Corp. v. Humana. Inc. 2008 WL 4500258 (S.D. Ha. 2008); Ruskin Co. v. Greenheck Fan Corp. 2009 WL 383349 (S.D. Fla. 2009). Significantly, in both Preferred Care and Ruskin the Court affirmed the decision of a Magistrate Judge rejecting a higher standard for production of tax returns, holding that, despite an arguable split of authority, 2 the Magistrate Judge's decision was not "contrary to law." Id. Likewise, the Magistrate Judge's decision in this case compelling
+
+ x27;Defendant relies upon Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2008 WL 2105024 (S.D. Ha. 2005) and Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc. 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Ha. 2001), in which the Court applied the higher standard. These cases do not consider the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Maddow and the federal judges in this District over the past five years since Pendlebury have consistently rejected the "compelling need" standard for production of tax returns. See cases cited above.production of tax returns is consistent with authority in this District and the Eleventh Circuit, and thus should be affirmed.
III. EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S FINANCIAL STATUS AND HISTORY IS RELEVANT TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AMONG OTHER ISSUES Defendant does not go so far as to contend that the discovery of his tax returns is not relevant under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. Defendant only argues that the Magistrate Judge did not address the relevancy standard in her Order. (Appeal, p. 25). As a result, Defendant does nothing to show that the Magistrate Judge's Order as to tax returns is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. In any event, it is abundantly clear that Defendant's financial status and history are relevant to punitive damages, among other issues in these cases, and in this regard the Defendant's tax returns are pertinent and discoverable. Tennant v. Charlton 377 So.2d 1169 (Ha. 1979) (holding that party may obtain tax returns for purposes of net worth discovery on issue of punitive damages). See also State v. O'Malley, 53 S.W. 3d 623 (Mo. App. 2001) ("[i]t is well settled that when a plaintiff seeks punitive damages against a defendant, evidence of the defendant's financial status is both relevant and admissible"); Interstate Narrow Fabrics. Inc. v. Century USA. Inc 2004 WL 444570 (M.D. N.C. 2004) (holding that tax returns are relevant to the jury's determination of the amount of punitive damages to award); E.J. Lavino & Co. v. Universal Health Services, Inc., 1991 WL 275767 (ED. Pa. 1991) ("[m]ost courts that have considered this issue have held that a plaintiff seeking punitive damages may discovery information pertaining to a defendant's net worth").
Defendant further argues that he should not have to produce his tax returns until "it becomes apparent" that "punitive damages will be an issue." (Appeal, p. 26). This argument ignores Florida law on punitive damages. It is well established that "punitive damages are always recoverable in intentional tort cases where malice is one of the essential elements of the
ton." Ciamar Marcay. Inc. v. Monteiro Da Costa 508 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (emphasis supplied). "In Florida it is clear that an act of intentional assault and battery committed without legal justification supplies proof of malice." Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So.2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Therefore, it is clear in this intentional tort case that punitive damages are an issue. As this Court knows, Defendant Epstein is alleged to have perpetrated a plan and scheme to sexually molest dozens of underage teenage girls.;
Even assuming that the "compelling need" standard were applicable for discovery of tax returns, clearly in this case there is a compelling need. Defendant has provided no net worth discovery, asserting a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege.4 Defendant nonetheless contends that there exists an "alternative" - not to discovery of the necessary information, but through his offer to "stipulate" to a net worth in the nine figures. Of course, a stipulation requires the consent of the parties and there is no agreement in this case on the Defendant's net worth. Defendant cannot unilaterally by fiat claim a certain net worth for purposes of trial.5 The law is well established that a jury may determine punitive damages "by exacting from [the defendant's] pocketbook a sum of money which, according to his financial ability, will hurt, but not
3 Defendant's reliance on Gallina v. Commerce and Industry Ins. 2008 WL 3895918 (M.D. Fla. 2008) is misplaced. Gallina is an insurance bad faith case and does not involve a claim of punitive damages against an intentional tortfeasor. Moreover, in the present case it would make no sense to have a different "stage" for punitive damages discovery or trial.
4 "[T]he burden to identify an alternative source of the information lies with the resisting party." Interstate Narrow Fabrics, 2004 WL 444570 at \*2. Here, Epstein's blanket Fifth Amendment privilege assertion to all net worth discovery makes it clear that them is a compelling need for any net worth discovery not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege.
3 Defendant relies upon Myers v. Central Florida Investment, Inc., 592 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2010) for its "stipulation" argument. In Myers, however, the district court heard testimony regarding each of the defendant's net worth. There was no unilateral statement of net worth in Myers as Defendant wishes to create in the instant case. To the extent that Defendant relies upon the Court's holding in Myers regarding the reasonableness of the trial court's award of punitive damages, the issue of reasonableness is determined by the particular facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion in Myers of this issue has no relevance here. Id.
bankrupt." loth. Inc. v. Thrall 245 So.2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (emphasis supplied). Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to discovery on the Defendant's real net worth so that the jury will be in a position to make an award that "will hurt". In any event, it seems beyond dispute that Defendant's tax returns are relevant and discoverable, either under a straight relevance test under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 or a heightened "compelling need" standard.
Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge's Orders as to Defendant's production of tax returns in response to Plaintiffs' document request no. 1 are not clearly erroneous and not contrary to law. As a result, the Magistrate Judge's Orders as to production of tax returns should be affirmed. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the documents responsive to Plaintiffs' document request no. 1 be ordered to be produced forthwith.
Dated: May 28, 2010. Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) ssm@sexabuseattorney.com Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@sexabuseattomev.com MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 28, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
/s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein
SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. iRoldberger@agwpa.com
Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton@bc1claw.com
James bedwards@rra-law.com
Isidro Manuel isidrogarcia@bellsouth.net
Jack jph@searcylaw.com
Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzell@podhurst.com
Michael James Pike MPike@bciclaw.com
Paul G. Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu
Richard Horace Willits lawyerwillits@aol.com
Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
+