Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 5, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. / EPSTEIN'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION [DE 91 TO SET ASIDE CLERK'S DEFAULT Discovery on service of process would be extraordinary,' unnecessary and a waste of resources. Mr. Barnett's affidavit is dispositive: He was the one who received the summons at Epstein's house, but he did not reside there. If the plaintiff had offered some evidence (e.g., a phone-book entry, a Google search-result, an affidavit, etc.) that Mr. Barnett did reside there, or that some other person, who did reside there, received the summons - - and if we were contesting service altogether See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) ("A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(1), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order."). EFTA02741556