Epstein Secrets

93 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. EPSTEIN'S MOTION PURSUANT TO FED. IL EVID. 412(c1 TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF JANE DOE'S AND OTHER WITNESSES' SEXUAL HISTORY AND INCORPORATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 412(0 REGARDING OTHER WITNESSES

14. If Jane Doe was having intercourse and oral sex with other males at the time she was allegedly going to Epstein's house, this would suggest that Jane Doc understood sex and sexuality and drew specific boundaries about what she would and would not do with Epstein. 32. It also contradicts Dr. Reed's o

regarding Jane Doe being sexually inexperienced Taira the frequency of sex with and the types of and naive, making her t " victim." Evidence of Jane Doe's relationship with demonstrates that Jane Doe sex they had. eventually became sexually experienced yet continued to go to Epstein's house. To con

both friends of Jane Doe and. brought Jane Doe to Epstein's house for the first time. 48. Epstein does not intend to offer any evidence covered by Rule 412, Federal Rules of Evidence, regarding or 'Sexual behavior or predisposition. Epstein contends that In and ■ should be prohibited from testifying

play. You can see Ms. received this in 2008. Several 11 months later, she filed suit against Jeffrey Epstein pursuant 12 to this letter in the Jane Doe 102 complaint. Paragraph 29 of 13 that complaint references this specific letter, and of course 14 that complaint is referenced in the Churcher a

ou remember an hour ago when 5 plaintiff's counsel handed you a book that had the Sharon 6 Churcher articles in and they argued to you, hey, that Jane Doe 7 102 is mentioned in that Sharon Churcher article and therefore, 8 Ms. Maxwell's denial about that statement somehow related to 9 the Jane Doe 102?

same 2 problem. Well, no, it isn't. No, it isn't. 3 Okay. So let's do 675. 4 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I will say that it is my 5 reading of Rule 412 that any hearing that is based upon in part 6 Rule 412 is supposed to be conducted in a in camera setting. 7 MS. SCHULTZ: Counsel for Ms. has no

into the Plaintiffs' claims. The private investigators' activities, some of which have been documented through the Declarations of Jane Doe No. 4,1 Jane Doe No. 6, Jane Doe No. 7 and Jane Doe No. 4's sister, Y.B., are not intended to receive information from relevant witnesses, but rather to give informa

9-KAM Document 266 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2009 Page 7 of 9 history, thereby evading the limitations on discovery and admissibility found in Rule 412 for the only conceivable purpose of harassing the Plaintiff. Defendant asserts that he seeks to use investigators to ask ex-boyfriends and friends

ges that "Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse" on her, which resulted in "mental or sexual injury," and "caused or likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired." 2d Am. Complaint, ¶25. The items sought are clearly relevant to the injuries and damages

conduct or predisposition in civil cases, which will be continued to be governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. In order not to undermine the rationale of Rule 412, however, courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and to ensu

eges that "Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse" on her, which resulted in "mental or sexual injury," and "caused or likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired." 2d Am. Complaint, ¶25. The information sought is dearly relevant to the injuries and dama

conduct or predisposition in civil cases, which will be continued to be governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. In order not to undermine the rationale of Rule 412, however, courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and to ensu

Interrogatory (# 18) seeking to unearth explicit information on every bit of possible sexual conduct and activity in chronological order which each Jane Doe might have engaged in since age 10, including the names and phone numbers of all persons with whom they had sexual contact.' Plaintiffs properly ob

urt "must impose certain restriction on discovery to preclude inquiry into areas which will clearly fail to satisfy the balancing test" set forth in Rule 412. See Barta I. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. at 135. In Barta, the Court confronted this issue in the context of a discovery motion in a c

d on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 11 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Background Defendant Epstein has filed a boilerplate motion to strike Jane Doe's trial date — and numerous other consolidated cases involving similar allegations of his sexual abuse of minors - for an unspecified period of time,

l conduct or predisposition in civil cases, which will be continued to be governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. In order not to undermine the rationale of Rule 412, however, courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and to ensu