Case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2008 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 i 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(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(I)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order."). EFTA02741567