Epstein Secrets

/2009 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-8

has failed to satisfy this burden. There is no pending motion for summary judgment. There is also no criminal proceeding at this time arising from Epstein's acts against the Plaintiffs or other victims. Indeed, whether such a criminal proceeding is ever commenced is entirely within the Defendant's cont

revent an unconstitutional infringement of the ' Defendant Epstein filed an identical Motion to Stay in the case Jan

E NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.:

e Doe. 'In this regard, The Defendant's silence by invoking the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit adverse inferences against him in the civil case. Shell Oil. 866 F.Supp. at 40. - 3 - EFTA00201248 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 64-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2009 Page 4 of 13 Case 9:08-cv-80381

es the United States take any position regarding Defendant Epstein's performance of his obligations pursuant to the

NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.:

spondence or oral communications between the parties in these civil suits. Based on the information presented by the Court and a review of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action for Time Certain Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Court

f the civil proceedings in the "interests of justice" until the "expiration" of the Non- Prosecution Agreement ["NPA"] between the United States and Epstein? By filing this response, the United States does not make itself a party to this litigation and takes no position with respect to the outcome of an

lent for fear of self incrimination in a parallel criminal proceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional infringement.' Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co.l Altina Assocs., Inc., 866 F. Supp. 536, 540 (M.D. Fl. 1994)). As this Court has previously explained: The law regardini stays of civil action

2009 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-8

has failed to satisfy this burden. There is no pending motion for summary judgment. There is also no criminal proceeding at this time arising from Epstein's acts against the Plaintiffs or other victims. Indeed, whether such a criminal proceeding is ever commenced is entirely within the Defendant's cont

revent an unconstitutional infringement of the ' Defendant Epstein filed an identical Motion to Stay in the case Jan

NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.:

e Doe. 'In this regard, The Defendant's silence by invoking the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit adverse inferences against him in the civil case. Shell Oil, 866 F.Supp. at 40. - 3 - EFTA00222588 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2009 Page 4 of 9 defendant's right aga

spondence or oral communications between the parties in these civil suits. Based on the information presented by the Court and a review of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action for Time Certain Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Court

f the civil proceedings in the "interests of justice" until the "expiration" of the Non- Prosecution Agreement ["NPA"] between the United States and Epstein? By filing this response, the United States does not make itself a party to this litigation and takes no position with respect to the outcome of an

es the United States take any position regarding Defendant Epstein's performance of his obligations pursuant to the

NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.:

lent for fear of self incrimination in a parallel criminal proceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional infringement.' Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co.l Altina Assocs., Inc., 866 F. Supp. 536, 540 (M.D. Fl. 1994)). As this Court has previously explained: The law regardini stays of civil action

F FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS OF JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2 FOR PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS Purs

DATORY AND DISCRETIONARY INTERVENTION An PROPER Intervention is proper as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) because Mr. Epstein has an interest in protecting his privileged and confidential plea negotiations, and "disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or im

rees without extending its jurisdic- tion. Keith Jeffrey Lambdin, Katzman Gar- finkel Rosenbaum, John Davi

er Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) because Mr. Epstein has an interest in protecting his privileged and

aw firms will be sufficiently voluminous to minimize disclosure of the attorney's identification of some occasional wheat among the chaff."); In re Shell Oil, 125 F.R.D. at 134 ("it is highly unlikely that Shell will be able to discern the PLC's `theory of the case' or thought processes simply by knowing

- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY E

as failed to satisfy this burden. There is no pending motion for summary judgment. There is also no criminal proceeding at this time arising from Epstein’s acts against the Plaintiffs or other victims. Indeed, whether such a criminal proceeding is ever commenced is entirely within the Defendant’s con

1 Defendant Epstein filed an identical Motion to Stay in the case Jan

emaining silent for fear of self incrimination in a parallel criminal proceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional infringement.”2 Shell Oil, 866 F.Supp. at 540. Accordingly, the Defendant’s right to silence is not a basis to stay the civil case pending resolution of a criminal action.

- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY E

as failed to satisfy this burden. There is no pending motion for summary judgment. There is also no criminal proceeding at this time arising from Epstein’s acts against the Plaintiffs or other victims. Indeed, whether such a criminal proceeding is ever commenced is entirely within the Defendant’s con

1 Defendant Epstein filed an identical Motion to Stay in the case Jan

emaining silent for fear of self incrimination in a parallel criminal proceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional infringement.”2 Shell Oil, 866 F.Supp. at 540. Accordingly, the Defendant’s right to silence is not a basis to stay the civil case pending resolution of a criminal action.

09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, ____________________________________/ PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-8’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS, AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiffs, Jane Doe Nos. 2 through 8 (“Plaintiffs”), by and throug

in’s Attendance at Deposition of Plaintiffs, and state as follows: 1. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s counsel has advised Plaintiffs’ counsel that Jeffrey Epstein plans to attend the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 on September 16, 2009. This deposition is to be videotaped, as stated in the Notice served

ndance at Deposition of Plaintiffs, and state as follows: 1. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s counsel has advised Plaintiffs’ counsel that Jeffrey Epstein plans to attend the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 on September 16, 2009. This deposition is to be videotaped, as stated in the Notice served by Def

eb v. County of Orange, 151 F.R.D. 258 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (limiting persons who can attend depositions of nursing personnel in child abuse case); In re Shell Oil Refinery, 136 F.R.D. 615 (E.D. La. 1991) (excluding corporate representative from employee’s deposition unless representative had actual supervisory

ing civilian nuclear agreement, and NATO suspended military contacts. "We did a lot but in the end there was not that much that you could do," Mr. Jeffrey recalled. Inside the Bush administration, there was discussion of more robust action, like bombing the Roki Tunnel to block Russian troops or provi

aifa and Caesarea. No luck. In 2007 the search for an American partner brought an Israel Petroleum Authority official to Houston and the offices of Shell Oil. It was a smart choice. Shell had been making breakthrough discoveries in how to produce oil from shale rock, thanks to its chief scientist, Harold