073.pdf
237 KB
Extraction Summary
12
People
7
Organizations
3
Locations
4
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal pleading (response to motion for protective order)
File Size:
237 KB
Summary
This document is a legal response filed on November 28, 2009, by Plaintiff Carolyn M. Andriano (Jane Doe No. 2) in her civil case against Jeffrey Epstein. The filing opposes a motion by third-party witness Igor Zinoview—Epstein's driver, bodyguard, and trainer since November 2005—who sought to avoid being deposed by claiming he had no knowledge of relevant facts. The Plaintiff argues that Zinoview must be deposed because he worked for Epstein during the active Palm Beach Police investigation (2005-2006) and likely possesses knowledge regarding activities at the Epstein residence, especially since Epstein himself invoked the Fifth Amendment.
People (12)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Carolyn M. Andriano | Plaintiff |
Filing response as Jane Doe No. 2 against Jeffrey Epstein.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant |
Employer of Igor Zinoview; accused of sexual misconduct with minors.
|
| Igor Zinoview | Third Party Witness |
Epstein's driver, bodyguard, and trainer since Nov 2005. Seeking to avoid deposition.
|
| Jack Scarola | Attorney |
Counsel for Plaintiff, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
|
| Jack P. Hill | Attorney |
Counsel for Plaintiff, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
|
| Sarah Kellen | Defendant (Related Case) |
Represented by Bruce Reinhart.
|
| Stuart S. Mermelstein | Attorney |
Counsel for Plaintiffs in related cases.
|
| Brad Edwards | Attorney |
Counsel for Plaintiff in related case.
|
| Bruce Reinhart | Attorney |
Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen.
|
| Paul G. Cassell | Attorney |
Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe.
|
| Jack Alan Goldberger | Attorney |
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein.
|
| Spencer T. Kuvin | Attorney |
Counsel for Plaintiff in related case.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court Southern District of Florida |
Court where case is filed.
|
|
| Palm Beach Police Department |
Conducted investigation into Epstein from March 2005 to Feb 2006.
|
|
| Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. |
Law firm representing the Plaintiff.
|
|
| Garcia Law Firm, P.A. |
Law firm on service list.
|
|
| Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler |
Law firm on service list.
|
|
| Podhurst Orseck, P.A. |
Law firm on service list.
|
|
| Leopold, Kuvin, P.A. |
Law firm on service list.
|
Timeline (4 events)
2005-03-15
Start of Palm Beach Police Department investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
Palm Beach, FL
2005-11
Igor Zinoview begins employment as Epstein's driver, bodyguard, and trainer.
Epstein Residence
2006-02
End of Palm Beach Police Department investigation period cited in document.
Palm Beach, FL
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of police investigation and law firms.
|
|
|
Location of Plaintiff's counsel.
|
|
|
Implied location where Zinoview worked as driver/bodyguard.
|
Relationships (3)
Employed as driver, bodyguard, and trainer since November 2005.
Case caption: Jane Doe No. 2 (Carolyn M. Andriano) vs. Jeffrey Epstein.
Service list lists Bruce Reinhart as 'Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen'.
Key Quotes (4)
"Mr. Zinoview has been employed by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, as his 'driver, bodyguard, and trainer' since November of 2005."Source
073.pdf
Quote #1
"Mr. Zinoview certainly might have direct knowledge about what was going on in and around the Epstein residence during the time period in which he was employed by Defendant Epstein"Source
073.pdf
Quote #2
"Given the Defendant’s voracious invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege, the plaintiffs have consistently been denied the opportunity to seek any relevant information directly from Defendant Epstein himself."Source
073.pdf
Quote #3
"Mr. Zinoview’s opinions and beliefs about the factual matters surrounding plaintiffs’ claims are relevant to exploring any potential bias and prejudice in favor of his employer"Source
073.pdf
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (10,386 characters)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
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
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
PLAINTIFF, CAROLYN M. ANDRIANO’S, RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY WITNESS,
IGOR ZINOVIEW’S, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND INCORPORATED
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IGOR ZINOVIEW’S, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND INCORPORATED
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Plaintiff, Carolyn M. Andriano, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby
files her Response Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoview’s, Motion For Protective Order
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 402), and in support thereof states as
follows:
1. Third party witness, Igor Zinoview, seeks to have this Court enter an order
preventing his deposition from going forward at all, or, in the alternative, limiting the
scope of permissible questioning during same. Mr. Zinoview’s deposition is presently
scheduled to be taken on December 18, 2009.
2. Mr. Zinoview has been employed by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, as his
“driver, bodyguard, and trainer” since November of 2005. See Affidavit of Igor Zinoview
(D.E. 402) dated November 9, 2009. Mr. Zinoview argues that his deposition should not
go forward as scheduled because Defendant Epstein has never discussed nor
attempted to discuss with him “any facts or information related to any legal matters in
which he [Jeffrey Epstein] is involved.” Id. From Mr. Zinoview’s vague assertion springs
the bold yet erroneous argument that “Mr. Zinoview cannot possibly have any
knowledge or information that is presently germane to this action.”
3. It should initially be noted that a “complete prohibition of a deposition is an
extraordinary measure which should be resorted to only in rare occasions.” Jennings v.
Family Management, 201 F.R.D. 272 (D.D.C. 2001); See also, Salter v. Upjohn Co.,
593 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Circ. 1979)(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.); Inv. Properties Intern., Ltd. v. IOS, Ltd., 459 F.2d. 705, 708 (2d Circ.
1972)(“an order to vacate a notice of taking deposition is generally regarded as both
unusual and unfavorable . . . “). Neither Mr. Zinoview’s conclusory affidavit nor his
Motion provide anything even approaching the “extraordinary circumstances” necessary
to justify the entry of order precluding his deposition from going forward at all.
4. Additionally, Mr. Zinoview’s vague assertion that he and Defendant
Epstein have never discussed any facts or information related to any legal matters that
Mr. Epstein is involved in does not give rise to requisite “extraordinary circumstances”
either. Detweiler Bros, Inc. v John Graham and Company, 412 F.Supp. 416 (E.D. Wash,
1976)(Plaintiff could not properly seek to prohibit defendant from deposing plaintiff’s
employee via a protective order on grounds that employee had no knowledge of matters
at issue.) See also, 8 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. §2037, Wright and Miller(“A witness
ordinarily cannot escape examination by denying knowledge of any relevant facts, since
the party seeking to take the deposition is entitled to test the witness’s lack of
knowledge.”)
5. The undersigned, as well as counsel for all of the other victims of Jeffrey
Epstein, are entitled to question and challenge Mr. Zinoview on his purported lack of
knowledge. Mr. Zinoview and plaintiffs’ counsel very well might have a difference of
opinion on what constitutes “facts and information related to any legal matters” in which
Defendant Epstein is involved. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein ought not to be forced to
accept Mr. Zinoview’s opinion as to what constitutes “facts and information related to
any legal matters” involving Jeffrey Epstein. Instead, plaintiffs should be able to explore
these relevant matters directly with Mr. Zinoview, rather than being forced to rely on his
twenty seven (27) word claim of lacking any knowledge.
6. Additionally, Mr. Zinoview worked for Defendant Epstein during portions of
the Palm Beach Police Department’s months’ long investigation which spanned from
March 15, 2005 through February 2006 into the illegal sexual contact committed by
Defendant Epstein against these minor plaintiffs. Accordingly, Mr. Zinoview certainly
might have direct knowledge about what was going on in and around the Epstein
residence during the time period in which he was employed by Defendant Epstein as his
“driver, bodyguard, and trainer” while his employer was being investigated by law
enforcement. Given the Defendant’s voracious invocation of his Fifth Amendment
privilege, the plaintiffs have consistently been denied the opportunity to seek any
relevant information directly from Defendant Epstein himself. Rather, plaintiffs have
been forced to build their cases against Mr. Epstein by other discovery methods,
including deposing his employees who may have relevant information.
7. Third party witness Igor Zinoview has failed to meet his very high burden
of establishing “extraordinary circumstances.” Mr. Zinoview has failed to demonstrate
the “good cause” required by Rule 26(c) to protect a person from “annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” to overcome the liberal
scope of permissible discovery. The above proposed lines of inquiry of Mr. Zinoview
are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Accordingly, to the extent that it seeks to preclude his deposition from going forward at
all, Mr. Zinoview’s Motion should be denied
8. Next, Mr. Zinoview also seeks to prevent questions being posed to him
wherein he is first asked to “assume certain facts about which he has no knowledge,”
and then be asked about his “opinions about certain facts.” First, it remains to be seen
exactly what facts about which Mr. Zinoview has no knowledge. Second, Mr. Zinoview’s
opinions and beliefs about the factual matters surrounding plaintiffs’ claims are relevant
to exploring any potential bias and prejudice in favor of his employer and against
Defendant Epstein’s victims. For example, if Mr. Zinoview believes that these plaintiffs
are simply inventing their claims against his employer that they were sexually victimized
by Defendant Epstein while they were minor children, it very well might impact his
impartiality as a witness. Third, the undersigned has no present intention of engaging in
this line of questioning unless the proverbial “door” has been opened by Mr. Zinoview
first. Lastly, counsel for Mr. Zinoview is certainly free to invoke the privileges afforded to
him by the applicable procedural rules should he feel that his client is being asked
inappropriate questions during the deposition.
9. In conclusion and for the reasons cited above, Mr. Zinoview’s Motion For
Protective Order should be denied in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Carolyn Margaret Andriano, respectfully requests that
this Court deny Third Party Igor Zinoview’s Motion For Protective Order.
Respectfully submitted,
files her Response Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoview’s, Motion For Protective Order
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 402), and in support thereof states as
follows:
1. Third party witness, Igor Zinoview, seeks to have this Court enter an order
preventing his deposition from going forward at all, or, in the alternative, limiting the
scope of permissible questioning during same. Mr. Zinoview’s deposition is presently
scheduled to be taken on December 18, 2009.
2. Mr. Zinoview has been employed by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, as his
“driver, bodyguard, and trainer” since November of 2005. See Affidavit of Igor Zinoview
(D.E. 402) dated November 9, 2009. Mr. Zinoview argues that his deposition should not
go forward as scheduled because Defendant Epstein has never discussed nor
attempted to discuss with him “any facts or information related to any legal matters in
which he [Jeffrey Epstein] is involved.” Id. From Mr. Zinoview’s vague assertion springs
the bold yet erroneous argument that “Mr. Zinoview cannot possibly have any
knowledge or information that is presently germane to this action.”
3. It should initially be noted that a “complete prohibition of a deposition is an
extraordinary measure which should be resorted to only in rare occasions.” Jennings v.
Family Management, 201 F.R.D. 272 (D.D.C. 2001); See also, Salter v. Upjohn Co.,
593 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Circ. 1979)(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.); Inv. Properties Intern., Ltd. v. IOS, Ltd., 459 F.2d. 705, 708 (2d Circ.
1972)(“an order to vacate a notice of taking deposition is generally regarded as both
unusual and unfavorable . . . “). Neither Mr. Zinoview’s conclusory affidavit nor his
Motion provide anything even approaching the “extraordinary circumstances” necessary
to justify the entry of order precluding his deposition from going forward at all.
4. Additionally, Mr. Zinoview’s vague assertion that he and Defendant
Epstein have never discussed any facts or information related to any legal matters that
Mr. Epstein is involved in does not give rise to requisite “extraordinary circumstances”
either. Detweiler Bros, Inc. v John Graham and Company, 412 F.Supp. 416 (E.D. Wash,
1976)(Plaintiff could not properly seek to prohibit defendant from deposing plaintiff’s
employee via a protective order on grounds that employee had no knowledge of matters
at issue.) See also, 8 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. §2037, Wright and Miller(“A witness
ordinarily cannot escape examination by denying knowledge of any relevant facts, since
the party seeking to take the deposition is entitled to test the witness’s lack of
knowledge.”)
5. The undersigned, as well as counsel for all of the other victims of Jeffrey
Epstein, are entitled to question and challenge Mr. Zinoview on his purported lack of
knowledge. Mr. Zinoview and plaintiffs’ counsel very well might have a difference of
opinion on what constitutes “facts and information related to any legal matters” in which
Defendant Epstein is involved. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein ought not to be forced to
accept Mr. Zinoview’s opinion as to what constitutes “facts and information related to
any legal matters” involving Jeffrey Epstein. Instead, plaintiffs should be able to explore
these relevant matters directly with Mr. Zinoview, rather than being forced to rely on his
twenty seven (27) word claim of lacking any knowledge.
6. Additionally, Mr. Zinoview worked for Defendant Epstein during portions of
the Palm Beach Police Department’s months’ long investigation which spanned from
March 15, 2005 through February 2006 into the illegal sexual contact committed by
Defendant Epstein against these minor plaintiffs. Accordingly, Mr. Zinoview certainly
might have direct knowledge about what was going on in and around the Epstein
residence during the time period in which he was employed by Defendant Epstein as his
“driver, bodyguard, and trainer” while his employer was being investigated by law
enforcement. Given the Defendant’s voracious invocation of his Fifth Amendment
privilege, the plaintiffs have consistently been denied the opportunity to seek any
relevant information directly from Defendant Epstein himself. Rather, plaintiffs have
been forced to build their cases against Mr. Epstein by other discovery methods,
including deposing his employees who may have relevant information.
7. Third party witness Igor Zinoview has failed to meet his very high burden
of establishing “extraordinary circumstances.” Mr. Zinoview has failed to demonstrate
the “good cause” required by Rule 26(c) to protect a person from “annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” to overcome the liberal
scope of permissible discovery. The above proposed lines of inquiry of Mr. Zinoview
are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Accordingly, to the extent that it seeks to preclude his deposition from going forward at
all, Mr. Zinoview’s Motion should be denied
8. Next, Mr. Zinoview also seeks to prevent questions being posed to him
wherein he is first asked to “assume certain facts about which he has no knowledge,”
and then be asked about his “opinions about certain facts.” First, it remains to be seen
exactly what facts about which Mr. Zinoview has no knowledge. Second, Mr. Zinoview’s
opinions and beliefs about the factual matters surrounding plaintiffs’ claims are relevant
to exploring any potential bias and prejudice in favor of his employer and against
Defendant Epstein’s victims. For example, if Mr. Zinoview believes that these plaintiffs
are simply inventing their claims against his employer that they were sexually victimized
by Defendant Epstein while they were minor children, it very well might impact his
impartiality as a witness. Third, the undersigned has no present intention of engaging in
this line of questioning unless the proverbial “door” has been opened by Mr. Zinoview
first. Lastly, counsel for Mr. Zinoview is certainly free to invoke the privileges afforded to
him by the applicable procedural rules should he feel that his client is being asked
inappropriate questions during the deposition.
9. In conclusion and for the reasons cited above, Mr. Zinoview’s Motion For
Protective Order should be denied in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Carolyn Margaret Andriano, respectfully requests that
this Court deny Third Party Igor Zinoview’s Motion For Protective Order.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Jack P. Hill
JACK SCAROLA
Florida Bar No. 169440
JACK P. HILL
Florida Bar No.: 0547808
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
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JACK SCAROLA
Florida Bar No. 169440
JACK P. HILL
Florida Bar No.: 0547808
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
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 28th, 2009, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified below via
transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 28th, 2009, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified below via
transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
/s/Jack P. Hill
Jack Scarola
Florida Bar No.: 169440
Jack P. Hill
Florida Bar No.: 0547808
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: (561) 686-6300
Fax: (561) 383-9424
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Jack Scarola
Florida Bar No.: 169440
Jack P. Hill
Florida Bar No.: 0547808
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: (561) 686-6300
Fax: (561) 383-9424
Attorneys for Plaintiff
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,
08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993,
08-80994
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,
08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993,
08-80994
Richard Horace Willits, Esq.
Richard H. Willits, P.A.
2290 10th Avenue North
Suite 404
Lake Worth, FL 33461
561-582-7600
Fax: 561-588-8819
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811
reelrhw@hotmail.com
Richard H. Willits, P.A.
2290 10th Avenue North
Suite 404
Lake Worth, FL 33461
561-582-7600
Fax: 561-588-8819
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811
reelrhw@hotmail.com
Jack Scarola, Esq.
Jack P. Hill, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
561-686-6300
Fax: 561-383-9424
jsx@searcylaw.com
jph@searcylaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A.
Jack P. Hill, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
561-686-6300
Fax: 561-383-9424
jsx@searcylaw.com
jph@searcylaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A.
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
Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen
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
Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen
Brad Edwards, 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 in Related Case No. 08-80893
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 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
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. Garcia, Esq.
Garcia 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
Garcia 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
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 Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656
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 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
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
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
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
skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804
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
skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document