Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 148 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009

Page 1 of 4 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 UNOPPOSED FIRST MOTION TO AMEND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, moves to amend his affirmative defenses as set forth in the attached Defendant EPSTEIN's First Amended Answer & Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2009); Loe. Gen. Rules 7.1, 15.1 (S.D. Fla. 2009): 1. Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., a party may amend his pleading "only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Plaintiff's counsel has consented in writing to Defendant's proposed amendments set forth in Exhibit A hereto. Plaintiff's written consent to the amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 2. It is well settled that leave to amend is liberally granted where, as here, there is no resulting prejudice. The liberal allowance of pleading amendments is a "recognition that controversies should be decided on the merits whenever practicable." See generally, 27A Fed.Pree., Lawyers Ed. §62.273. Generally; freely allowed (2008). "In Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 148 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009

Page 2 of 4 the absence of any apparent or declared reason--such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.--the leave sought should, as the rules require, be 'freely given.'" Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). 3. In the instant case, Defendant only amended his affirmative defenses. This is the first amendment sought by Defendant. Defendant's original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was recently filed with this Court on April 2, 2009. Recently certain constitutional issues have come to the forefront in other litigation filed against EPSTEIN based on similar allegations regarding the 18 U.S.C. §2255 claim and the punitive damages claim. Accordingly, Defendant seeks to add affirmative defenses directed to those claims. See affirmative defenses in Exhibit A hereto. 4. There will be no resulting prejudice to Plaintiff should leave to amend be granted. Defendant has not unduly delayed this matter in seeking the amendments. Defendant by written correspondence sought Plaintiff's permission to amend. As noted, Plaintiff agreed in writing to the amendments. See Exhibit B hereto. 5. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to the amendments sought. Upon this Court entering the order granting Defendant's motion to amend, he will file and serve the Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Loe. General Rule 15.1 (S.D. Fla. 2009). - 2 - Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 148 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009

Page 3 of 4 WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an order granting Defendant's motion to amend. Rule 7 .1 Certification I hereby certify that Defendant's counsel communicated in writing with Plaintiff's counsel regarding this motion to amend. Plaintiff's counsel agreed in writing to the proposed attached amendment (See Exhibit A and B). Robert D. ritton, Jr. Attorney f, r Defendant Epstein Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of reco~cj identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this i_Pa-ay of June , 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 [email protected] Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully s By:=-=::-::::-,,::-1-1.':I':--,--------,---,---------,_ ROBERT . RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Ba No. 224162 [email protected] - 3 - Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 148 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009