EFTA01073773

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 1 of 14 
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, 08-80380, 0840381, 08-80994, 
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 0940469, 
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 
OMNIBUS ORDER 
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Plaintiffs Motion to 
Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production(D.E. #194 and #210); (2) 
Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions (D.E. #195 
and #211); and, (3) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (D.E.#196 and 
#212). 
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. Thomas, with the promise of money in 
1 
EFTA01073773

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 2 of 14 
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. 
In each of these motions Plaintiff Jane Doe seeks to compel answers to certain 
requests for admissions, interrogatories and requests for production that were propounded 
on Defendant Epstein. Defendant has responded by asserting several objections, 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 'nk) person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be 
a witness against himself." 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 
2 
EFTA01073774

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 3 of 14 
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, "pit 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 case-
3 
EFTA01073775

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 4 of 14 
by-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 
Epstein's Response Memorandum for more particularized objections, rather than relying 
solely on Epstein's objections as initially stated, which in some cases are less specific in 
nature. 
4 
EFTA01073776

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 
Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 5 of 14 
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 
The Admission Requests at issue herein, Request Numbers 1-9 and 21-23, all 
essentially seek admissions relating to the same general subject matter, namely, 
Defendant's financial history: Epstein's net worth (Requests 1-5, and 23); fraudulent 
conveyances (Requests 6, 9, 21 and 22); real estate ownership (Requests 7-8). Epstein 
argues, and this Court agrees, that to force him to respond to these requests would involve 
compelled statements that could reasonably furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed 
to prosecute Epstein in future criminal proceedings or even support a criminal conviction. 
Accordingly, Epstein's objection to responding to these requests on the basis of his Fifth 
Amendment Right against self incrimination is upheld and Plaintiff's Motion is denied. 
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 concem that these 
requests for admissions, 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, 
the related cases and those matters outlined in Epstein's in camera submissions at D.E. 
#s 282 and 283. Given the allegations raised in the various Complaints and the elements 
5 
EFTA01073777

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 6 of 14 
required to convict Epstein of a crime, and considering the background facts underlying the 
case, these concerns are reasonable, real and not unjustified. It goes without saying that 
being forced to admit, deny and/or identify the existence of the information sought by virtue 
of an admission or denial is tantamount to forcing testimonial disclosures that would 
communicate statements of fact. Finding that such admissions or denials present a real 
and substantial danger of self-incrimination in this case, in other related cases, and relative 
to potential federal claims of violations, the Court concludes the subject requests are 
subject to Epstein's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. 
INTERROGATORY REQUESTS 
The interrogatories at issue here fall into three general categories: contention-type 
interrogatories seeking information such as the facts upon which Defendant relies in 
support of his affirmative defenses and pleading allegations and the anticipated testimony 
of certain witnesses (Interrogatories 12 and 23); financial history information such as what 
assets Epstein has, where such assets are located, and whether such assets have been 
transferred or fraudulently concealed (Interrogatories 2-7 and 13-15); and one identity 
information interrogatory seeking the names, addresses and phone numbers of Epstein's 
current accountants, financial planners or money managers (Interrogatory 17). For the 
following reasons Epstein's objections on the basis of his Fifth Amendment privilege 
against self-incrimination are upheld and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the subject 
Interrogatory Requests is denied. 
As with the Admission Requests, Epstein argues, and this Court agrees, that to 
force Epstein to answer the above-stated Interrogatories would involve compelled 
statements that could reasonably furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to 
6 
EFTA01073778

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 
Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 7 of 14 
prosecute Epstein in future criminal proceedings or even support a criminal conviction. 
Asking Epstein to identify persons or witnesses who may have knowledge of the events 
in question, to state the facts upon which he relies in support of his affirmative defenses, 
and to give an accounting of all of his assets and list all actions taken by him and those 
retained by him with reference to those assets, would violate the Fifth Amendment in that 
Epstein would be forced to incriminate himself in the commission of crimes. Further, such 
an order would constitute compelled testimonial admissions that could potentially provide 
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 or testify. Rudv-Glanzer v. 
Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, finding the sought after 
information would result in testimonial disclosures that would communicate statements of 
fact which in turn would present a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination in this 
case and other related cases as well as in areas that could result in criminal prosecution, 
Epstein's objection to responding to these requests on the basis of his Fifth Amendment 
privilege against self incrimination is upheld and Plaintiff's Motion is denied. 
PRODUCTION REQUESTS 
The production requests at issue here fall into four general categories: requests for 
documents the federal government gave to Epstein in the course of its plea discussions 
with him (Requests 7, 9 and 10); requests for financial information documents (Requests 
8, 11, 14 and 15); requests for personal tax returns from 2002 to the present and for a copy 
of Epstein's passport (Requests 12 and 13); and Epstein's medical records from Dr. 
Stephen Alexander (Request 16). Each of these categories of requests shall be addressed 
in turn. 
7 
EFTA01073779

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 
Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 8 of 14 
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel as it relates to the first category of documents, 
consisting of documents the federal government gave to Epstein in the course of its plea 
discussions with him (Requests 7, 9 and 10), is granted. 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 govemment has "prior knowledge of either the existence or the whereabouts of 
the...documents ultimately produced... ." Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 44. 
Requests 7, 9 and 10 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 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."). 
In an attempt to get around this settled principle of law, Epstein argues that forcing 
him to give Plaintiff the discovery produced by the government would implicate the Fifth 
Amendment in that such production might disclose witnesses helpful to Plaintiff. Epstein 
Resp., p.7. This argument misses the point. As Plaintiff correctly observes, the question 
is not whether the government's documents have information that might be harmful to 
8 
EFTA01073780

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 
Entered on FLSD Docket 02/0412010 Page 9 of 14 
Epstein's defense, indeed, a reasonable presumption would be that the documents do 
contain information harmful to Epstein and that is precisely why the government was 
showing Epstein the documents in the first place; Instead, the only pertinent question is 
whether tuming over the government's documents to Plaintiff somehow forces Epstein to 
provide 'testimony' to the government in contravention of the privilege against self 
incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. This question can only reasonably be 
answered in the negative. 
Also without merit is Epstein's argument that these requests are the same requests 
the undersigned previously found subject to the Fifth Amendment. Epstein Resp., pp.7-8. 
This is not the case. 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, all documents "relating to" Epstein's 
Florida guilty plea, and all documents obtained in "investigation 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 effectively 
make "use of the content of his mind," an action that would undeniably implicate the Fifth 
Amendment. See Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 43. 
Epstein also raises objections on the basis of the work product doctrine and the 
attorney client privilege. objections on the basis of the attorney client privilege and the 
work product doctrine are rejected out of hand. The attorney-client privilege protects 
"confidential communications" between a lawyer and his client for the purpose of obtaining 
legal advice. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976); U.S. v. Schaltenbrand, 
930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir.) cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 640 (1991); In re Grand Jury 
Subpoena (Bierman), 788 F.2d 1511, 1512 (11th Cir. 1986). Under the rule, only material 
9 
EFTA01073781

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 
Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 10 of 14 
involving confidential communications between the attorney and the client which fall within 
the purview of the privilege are rendered immune from discovery. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 403. 
The documents at issue here were given by the Government to Epstein, and as such are 
clearly not confidential communications protected by the attorney client privilege. The work 
product doctrine, which protects from disclosure documents and tangible things prepared 
in anticipation of litigation by or for a party or by or for that party's attorney acting for his 
client, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)1; In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 601 F.2d 162, 171 (5th Cir. 
1979), is also not implicated as the subject documents were not created by Epstein's 
attorneys. Id. 
Finally, Epstein argues the information sought is protected from disclosure by Rules 
408 and 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governing the admission into evidence of 
documents involving settlement discussions and plea negotiations. Plaintiffs acknowledge 
that Request Number 10 might, at some point, be implicated by the Rule, but they are 
correct when they avail themselves of the broad federal discovery rules and argue that the 
information sought, while it may ultimately be barred from use at trial, is nonetheless 
subject to disclosure at the instant discovery stage. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. 
Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). 
Accordingly, Epstein is ordered to produce the 
documents subject to these Requests within ten (10) days from the date hereof. 
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel as it relates to the second category of documents, 
financial information documents (Requests 8,11,14 and 15), is denied on the basis of the 
Fifth Amendment. In sustaining Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege, the Court has 
considered the facts alleged in the Complaints, the elements needed to convict Epstein of 
' Rule 26(b)(3) was adopted in 1970 to codify the holding in Hickman v. Taylor, 
329 U.S. 495 (1947). 
10 
EFTA01073782

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 11 of 14 
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 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 (5th Cir. 1980). 
In ruling as it does, the Court finds that ordering Epstein to produce the information 
sought, information which relates to potential violations of federal law and claims, 
constitutes testimonial disclosures that would communicate statements of fact and present 
a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination in both this case and other related cases 
that could result in criminal prosecution. 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"). The danger 
Epstein 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. Accordingly, finding 
the subject requests involve compelled statements that would furnish a link in the chain of 
evidence needed to convict Epstein of a crime, the Court finds Epstein's Fifth Amendment 
privilege claim validly asserted. Accordingly, Epstein's objection is sustained and he need 
not produce documents subject to these Requests. 
The third category of documents requested consists of Epstein's personal tax 
returns for the year 2002 through the present (Request No. 12) and a copy of Epstein's 
U.S. Passport (Request No. 13). Plaintiffs' Motion as it relates to both these requests is 
granted. Once again, 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; Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 44; Ponds, 454 F.3d at 325 (D.C. 
I I 
EFTA01073783

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 12 of 14 
Cir. 2006). In this instance the Government, namely the IRS, already has Epstein's tax 
returns, so it can hardly be incriminating for Epstein to produce them. Id. The same is true 
of Epstein's U.S. Passport. Since Epstein is required to show his Passport to Government 
officials every time he travels outside the United States, the Government undeniably has 
"prior knowledge" of the Passport's existence, and its whereabouts is a "foregone" 
conclusion. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 44. 
Even more persuasive is the fact that tax records and passports, considered by the 
courts to be "required records," are as a matter of law deemed not subject to Fifth 
Amendment protection. See, 
Raiah v. Mukasev, 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."); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 
1983)(ordering production of W-2 forms over Fifth Amendment objection on grounds of 
required records exception); In re Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 644-45 (S.D. N.Y. 1982)(same). 
Epstein's reliance on 26 U.S.C. §6103, governing the confidentiality of tax retums, 
does little to aid Epstein's cause. The same federal statute Epstein cites was cited by the 
claimant of the privilege in the cases referred to above and in each of them the court's 
ruled that the confidentiality provided by the IRS statute was properly overridden by the 
broad federal discovery rules. Id. Accordingly, Epstein's Fifth Amendment claim of 
privilege as it relates to these Requests is rejected and Epstein has ten (10) days from the 
date hereof to provide the discovery subject to these Requests. 
The last category of documents concem Epstein's medical records from Dr. Stephen 
Alexander (Request 16). Epstein raises several objections to this category of Requests 
from relevancy concerns to privilege claims. Because Plaintiff has failed to articulate any 
12 
EFTA01073784

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 
Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 13 of 14 
reasonable basis for obtaining the documents in question, Plaintiffs' Motion as it relates to 
this request is denied. While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. 
Washington v. Brown & 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. Ha. 
2007). Courts have long held that "[w]hile the standard of relevancy tin 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). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' 
Motion as it relates to Request No. 16 is denied. Epstein has raised detailed objections 
to the request, among other things calling into question the relevancy of his medical 
condition in this case where, according to him, he has not placed his medical condition at 
issue. This particular objection was met by Plaintiffs with silence. In light of the objection 
made by Epstein, Plaintiffs were obligated to come back in their reply and articulate some 
rational basis for seeking the records requested. Having failed in this regard, Plaintiffs' 
Motion as it relates to Request No. 16 is denied and Epstein need not produce documents 
responsive to this request. 
In accordance with the above and foregoing, it is hereby 
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 
13 
EFTA01073785

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 14 of 14 
(1) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production 
(D.E. #194 and #210) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART in accordance with 
the terms herein; 
(2) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions 
(D.E. #195 and #211) is DENIED; and, 
(3) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (D.E.#196 and #212) is 
DENIED. 
DONE AND ORDERED this February 4, 2010, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, 
Florida. 
'Ins 
--- 
LINNEA R. J 
ON 
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
CC: 
The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra 
All Counsel of Record 
14 
EFTA01073786