Epstein Secrets

/25/2009 Page 1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, V. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I -------------- DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, and RESPONSES TO 1st and 2

se protections meaningless in attempting Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page2 to assert and argue the factual basis for the additional objections and privileges. See part II.A. herein. I. Defendant EPSTEIN has proper

ntains his principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. Thomas and Palm Beach, FL." Id, ,I?. "Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. Thomas." Id, ,

name in an Indictment as victims of an offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255. Request No. 2.

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I -------------- DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWE

a particularized inquiry, evaluating whether the privilege applies with respect to each specific area that the questioning party wishes to explore. Melchor Moreno. 536 F.2d at 1049. The witness may be totally excused from testifying only if the court finds that he could legitimately refuse to answer essential

, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, physicians, hospitals and treatment facilities. No. 9. (Not at issue.)' List all items in Jeffrey Epstein's possession in Palm Beach, Florida, at any time during the period of these interrogatories, which were used or intended to be used as sexual aids, s

CT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, and RESPONSES TO 1st and 2nd PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND INCORPORATED MEMO

2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWE

9-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONS

name in an Indictment as victims of an offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255. Request No. 2.

a particularized inquiry, evaluating whether the privilege applies with respect to each specific area that the questioning party wishes to explore. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d at 1049. The witness may be totally excused from testifying only if the court finds that he could legitimately refuse to answer essential

CROSS-MOTION TO COMPEL The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby files its response to Jeffrey Epstein's motion to intervene and to quash two grand jury subpoenas issued to William Riley (Subpoena No. OLY-63) and to the Custodian of Records for Riley Ki

ly conflates several concepts involving different privileges that, when dissected, do not apply to the subpoenaed items. The first issue is whether Epsteins Fifth Amendment privilege applies to Riley's production of the computers removed from Epstein's home. The Fifth Amendment privilege "protects a pers

s. In re Grand Jury Proceedings in Matter of Freeman , 708 F.2d 1571, 1574-75 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing In re Grand Jury EFTA00222994 Proceedings (Jeffrey Fine) , 641 F.2d 199, 201-03 (5th Cir. 1981)). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 274 F.3d 563, 570 (1st Cir. 2001) ("Colorable claims of attorney-clie

and OLY-64 UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO INTERVENE AND TO QUASH GRAND JURY SUB

of the investigation. When Guy Lewis stated that Mr. Epstein was willing to assist in the federal investigatio

ness's silence is justified. United States I Koubriti , 297 F. Supp. 2d 955, 962 (ED. Mich. 2004) (citing Hoffman , 341 U.S. at 53; United States I Melchor Moreno , 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States I Rue , 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Morganroth , 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983)). S

undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby asks for permission to file a Supplemental ex parte Declaration in support of its Response to Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Intervene and to Quash Subpoenas and Cross- Motion to Compel. In support thereof, the United States states the following: 1. The Declara

response consists of rambling generalizations about various areas of the law which have little or nothing to do with the issues actually raised by Epstein, and those sections of the response require no reply. In other portions, however, the government has ignored critical facts, mischaracterized or mis

target surfaces. In re Grand Jury Proceedings in Matter of Freeman, 708 F.2d 1571, 1574-75 (1 1 th Cir. 1983) (citing In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Jeffrey Fine), 641 F.2d 199, 201-03 (5th Cir. 1981)). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 274 F.3d 563, 570 (1st Cir. 2001) ("Colorable claims of attorney-clien

AN & STUMPF, P.A., hereby appears as counsel for Jeffrey Epstein in the above-entitled cause. DATED at Mi

nce of a two-year term of state imprisonment for Mr. Epstein. That offer was not meant as a starting point for

ss's silence is justified. United States v. Koubriti, 297 F. Supp. 2d 955, 962 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (citing Hoffinan, 341 U.S. at 53; United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Rue, 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983)). See

CROSS-MOTION TO COMPEL The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby files its response to Jeffrey Epstein's motion to intervene and to quash two grand jury subpoenas issued to William Riley (Subpoena No. OLY-63) and to the Custodian of Records for Riley Ki

ly conflates several concepts involving different privileges that, when dissected, do not apply to the subpoenaed items. The first issue is whether Epsteins Fifth Amendment privilege applies to Riley's production of the computers removed from Epstein's home. The Fifth Amendment privilege "protects a pers

and OLY-64 UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO INTERVENE AND TO QUASH GRAND JURY SUB

of the investigation. When Guy Lewis stated that Mr. Epstein was willing to assist in the federal investigatio

ss's silence is justified. United States v. Koubriti , 297 F. Supp. 2d 955, 962 (ED. Mich. 2004) (citing Hoffman , 341 U.S. at 53; United States v. Melchor Moreno , 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Rue , 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Morganroth , 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983)).

s to Interrogatories on Fifth Amendment Grounds Defendant Epstein insists that he has not asserted a "blanket privi

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

9 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80I I 9-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Plaintiff, by and through unde

elf-Incrimination That Is Insufficient 1. Defendant Cannot Rely on its Blanket Objections to Interrogatories on Fifth Amendment Grounds Defendant Epstein insists that he has not asserted a "blanket privilege" to discovery under the Fifth Amendment, even though he has repeated the identical objection t

ry", and "only as to genuinely threatening questions should [the witness's] silence be sustained." Goodwin, 625 F.2d at 701 (quoting United States'. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976)). Defendant further asserts that Plaintiff's interrogatories requesting that he identify employees may lead t

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION

mination That Is Insufficient 1. Defendant Cannot Rely on its Blanket Objections to Interrogatories on Fifth Amendment Grounds Defendant Epstein insists that he has not asserted a “blanket privilege” to discovery under the Fifth Amendment, even though he has repeated the identical objection t

o Interrogatories on Fifth Amendment Grounds Defendant Epstein insists that he has not asserted a “blanket privi

”, and “only as to genuinely threatening questions should [the witness’s] silence be sustained.” Goodwin, 625 F.2d at 701 (quoting United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976)). Defendant further asserts that Plaintiff’s interrogatories requesting that he identify employees may lea

NT, ATTORNEY-CLIENT, AND WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES ARE UNENFORCEABLE; THE COURT MUST BE ALLOWED TO JUDGE EACH ASSERTION ON ITS FACTS In his motion, Epstein asserts that all of the items called for by the subpoenas will violate his Fifth Amendment privilege, the attorney-client privilege, and the work pr

ess's silence is justified. United States I Koubriti , 297 F. Supp. 2d 955, 962 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (citing Hoffman , 341 U.S. at 53; United States I Melchor Moreno , 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States I Rue , 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Morganroth , 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983)). S