Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant / RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO "CONSOLIDATION" OF CASES AND OBJECTING TO CONSOLIDATION OF DEPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANT AND TO ANY DELAY IN CURRENTLY PENDING DISCOVERY COMES NOW plaintiff Jane Doe No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff' in this pleading), by and through her undersigned counsel, to respond in opposition to consolidating her case with other cases for discovery purposes. The Court should deny consolidation, without prejudice to Jane Doc No. 3 re-filing the motion with more specific information about what the consolidation would entail. As the Court is aware, there is currently a case management order in place in this case (DE 20), which sets the parameters of discovery. Jane Doe No. 3 (and, apparently, several other Jane Does represented by the same counsel) have filed a motion to consolidate their pending cases with Plaintiff's case. The only articulated concern of these persons was to avoid multiple - and harassing - depositions about sexual abuse. That concern has now been obviated by the Court's entry of an order (DE 43) limiting depositions of each of the Jane Does. It is therefore, unclear what Jane Due Nu. 3 specifically hopes to further accomplish by consolidation. Moreover, it is unclear to what extent consolidation would alter the existing case management EFTA00234804