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-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 6, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009

Page 1 of 10 Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. II, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009

Page 2 of 10 vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) reply to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence (“Response”) and state as follows: 1. Defendant complains that Plaintiffs “once again mislead and mischaracterize the criminal counts to which Epstein pled guilty” (Resp. ¶ 1) and that Plaintiffs’ allegations in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence (“Motion”) Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009

Page 3 of 10 are without factual basis (id. ¶ 2). While Plaintiffs strenuously disagree with Defendant’s statements, these allegations and denials are irrelevant to this Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence. 2. Defendant asserts that he previously agreed to preserve all necessary evidence by way of an Order, attached to his Response as Exhibit “A,” which Order was entered in another counsel’s earlier-filed case, Jane Doe a/k/a Jane Doe No. 1 v. Epstein et al., Case No. 08-80804- CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON [D.E. 20]. Defendant’s attorneys state that they have no objections to a similar order being issued in the present case (see Resp. ¶ 4); however, defense counsel fail to mention in their Response that the Order in Jane Doe No. 1 does not provide for the preservation of evidence that Plaintiffs are requesting in the present case. The discovery request in Jane Doe No. 1 pertains merely to items listed in a property receipt for evidence confiscated by the Palm Beach Police Department. Here, Plaintiffs, through their Motion, request the preservation of relevant and discoverable evidence beyond those confiscated items. Defendant asserts no specific objections to any of the items listed in paragraphs 8 through 10 of Plaintiffs’ Motion, but, instead, asks the Court to enter an order similar to the Order in Jane Doe No. 1, which would be tantamount to denying most of Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's preservation request. 3. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs’ request for preservation as being “grossly overly broad” (Resp. ¶ 7), but fails to demonstrate any basis for this objection. Furthermore, this contention is hypocritical, considering that Defendant issued an equally, if not more, expansive request in his May 12, 2009 letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel. See Ex. “A,” attached hereto. Plaintiffs specify in paragraphs 8 through 10 of their Motion that the list of items to be preserved consists of relevant Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009

Page 4 of 10 1 One example of a relevant request by Plaintiffs in their Motion is for “records of domestic and international travel, including travel in Defendant’s private airplanes; . . . .” Motion ¶ 8. Considering Count Two of Jane Doe No. 101's Amended Complaint, which is entitled “Travel with Intent to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b),” (Amended Complaint ¶¶ 29-32), records of Defendant’s travel are relevant and important documents that must be preserved. evidence.1 In contrast, Defendant’s letter requests the preservation of all computer files and electronic data, without any specification limiting his request to potentially relevant documents. 4. Defendant complains that Plaintiffs’ request to preserve evidence includes information that is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, potential admissibility is not relevant to a preservation order, as the court recognized in Capricorn Power Co. v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., 220 F.R.D. 429, 434 (W.D. Pa. 2004): “[A] motion for a preservation order can be granted with regard to all items of evidence which are discoverable in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), without the necessity of establishing that the evidence will necessarily be relevant and admissible at trial.” 5. Defendant’s Fifth Amendment concerns are premature, as Plaintiffs are not asking Defendant to produce evidence. Defendant admits in his Response that “[t]he Fifth Amendment Privilege extends to the act of production . . . .” (Resp. ¶ 7). Indeed, Defendant’s entire Fifth Amendment privilege argument throughout his Response rests solely on case law dealing with the production of evidence. Defendant does not cite to any authority for his assertion that the privilege against self-incrimination applies to preserving, as opposed to producing, evidence. Unsurprisingly, Defendant merely posits, with no legal basis, that “Plaintiffs’ motion to preserve evidence . . . is in reality no different that [sic] propounding a discovery request upon Defendant, . . . .” (id.) Such an assertion is senseless. If and when a notice to produce is served, the Court will determine the Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009

Page 5 of 10 validity of any claims of Fifth Amendment privilege. Until then, briefing Fifth Amendment privilege issues is a waste of the Court’s and counsel’s time. 6. Finally, whether the Non-Prosecution Agreement is, as Defendant coins it, a “deferred prosecution agreement” (see Resp. ¶ 6), is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter the order that Plaintiffs submitted with their Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence. DATED this 22nd day of June, 2009. Respectfully submitted, By: s/Robert C. Josefsberg Robert C. Josefsberg, Bar No. 040856 Katherine W. Ezell, Bar No. 114771 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33130 (305) 358-2800 (305) 358-2382 (fax) [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009

Page 6 of 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 22nd day of June, 2009, we electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. Respectfully submitted, PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: s/Robert C. Josefsberg Robert C. Josefsberg Fla. Br No. 040856 [email protected] Katherine W. Ezell Fla. Bar No. 114771 [email protected] City National Bank Building 25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009

Page 7 of 10 SERVICE LIST JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Robert Critton, Esq. Michael J. Pike, Esq. Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 842-2820 Fax: (561) 515-3148 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 659-8300 Fax: (561) 835-8691 [email protected] Co-Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 202-6360 Fax: (561) 828-0983 [email protected] Counsel for Co-Defendant, Sarah Kellen Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Phone: (561) 686-6300 Fax: (561) 383-9456 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009

Page 8 of 10 Adam Horowitz, Esq. Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. Leopold Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Phone: (561) 515-1400 Fax: (561) 515-1401 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 Richard Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. 2290 10th Ave North, Suite 404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 Phone: (561) 582-7600 Fax: (561) 588-8819 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 Brad Edwards, Esq. Law Office of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202 Hollywood, FL 33020 Phone: (954) 414-8033 Fax: (954) 924-1530 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 Isidro Manuel Garcia, Esq. Garcia Elkins & Boehringer 224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009

Page 9 of 10 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 832-8033 Fax: (561) 832-7137 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2009