Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009

Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. ----------~/ JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. ----------~/ JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. ----------~/ JANE DOE NO. 5, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON __________ __:! Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009

Page 2 of 9 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No.08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Response to Jane Doe's Motion to Provide Recently Obtained Affidavit of Epstein Page 2 of9 JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. -----------~/ JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. I C.M.A., Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. I JANE DOE, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. I CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009

Page 3 of 9 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No.08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Response to Jane Doe's Motion to Provide Recently Obtained Affidavit of Epstein Page 3 of9 DOE II, CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. I JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. I JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO JANE DOE'S MOTION TO PROVIDE RECENTLY-OBTAINED AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF MATERIAL FACTS SUPPORTING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF PROPERTY OF EPSTEIN Defendant, JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), submits this response to Plaintiffs, Jane Doe ("Jane Doe"), Motion to Provide Recently-Obtained Affidavit of Jeffrey E. Epstein in Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009

Page 4 of 9 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Response to Jane Doe's Motion to Provide Recently Obtained Affidavit of Epstein Page 4 of9 Support of Material Facts Supporting Motion for Appointment of a receiver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein ("Motion"), and states: 1. Jane Doe seeks to supplement her Motion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of Assets (DE #165) ("Injunction Motion") with a "recently-obtained" affidavit of Epstein. The instant Motion was filed after Epstein served his Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Injunction Motion (DE #198). Thus, if the Court were to consider this late- filed affidavit, Epstein would have no opportunity to respond to the affidavit or any arguments based thereon. Accordingly, the Court should deny Jane Doe's Motion and disregard the affidavit. 2. Rule 6(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires "[a]ny affidavit supporting a motion must be served with the motion." (Emphasis added). Moreover, Local Rule 7.1 C.3, U.S. District Court, Southern District Local Rules, provides "[t]o the extent a party wants the Court to consider affidavits, declarations, or other materials in support of or in opposition to the motion, then (a) the movant must serve with the motion all such materials. (Emphasis added). 3. Despite Jane Doe's assertion that she did not receive the affidavit until July 13, 2009, there is no question Epstein's affidavit was available at the time Jane Doe served her Injunction Motion as the affidavit is almost seven years old ( dated October 2002). 4. While Jane Doe calls it a "newly-obtained affidavit," it is not newly-obtained in the sense that it could not have been discovered at the time she served her Injunction Motion. 5. Simply put, the affidavit is untimely and the Court should therefore disregard it in determining Jane Doe's Injunction Motion. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009

Page 5 of 9 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Response to Jane Doe's Motion to Provide Recently Obtained Affidavit of Epstein Page 5 of9 6. Moreover, consideration of the affidavit would severely prejudice Epstein because cannot respond to Jane Doe's arguments, assertions and implications regarding the affidavit since he already filed his Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Injunction Motion (DE #198). 7. This point is illustrated by Jane Doe's Reply to her Injunction Motion (DE #217), in which she attaches as Exhibit A Epstein's 2002 affidavit (before the Court ruled on the instant Motion) and uses it to make ridiculous and untenable conclusions about fraudulent asset transfers. For example, Jane Doe cites the portion of Epstein's affidavit in which he states he provides financial advice from the U.S. Virgin Islands in securities and other matters to his clients and that he is viewed as one of Citibank's most important individual clients. See DE #217 at 12. In the very next sentence, Jane Doe asserts "[g]iven the fact that asset transfers can take place to such countries as Israel, Switzerland, and the Cayman Islands, placing the burden on Jane Doe to document fraudulent asset transfers to such destinations effectively give a green light to massive fraud - a fraud that could ultimately total in the neighborhood of one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000.00)." 8. Jane Doe somehow takes Epstein's assertion that he provides financial advice from the Virgin Islands and is an important Citibank client to essentially suggest he is involved in a billion-dollar international fraudulent transfer scheme. Such a conclusion is absurd and is pure fiction. 9. Epstein will obviously be unfairly prejudiced by his inability to respond to these ludicrous theories. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009

Page 6 of 9 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Response to Jane Doe's Motion to Provide Recently Obtained Affidavit of Epstein Page 6 of9 10. Accordingly, the Court should disregard the affidavit in consideration of the Injunction Motion and strike the affidavit from Jane Doe's Reply Brief (Exhibit A to DE #217). WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, respectfully requests the Court deny Jane Doe's Motion, strike the affidavit from Jane Doe's Reply Brief (Exhibit A to DE #217) and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper. By: ----t--1-7"'=---- ROBERT D. C ON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar N . 224162 MICHAEL J. IKE, ESQ. Florida Bar # 17296 DAVID A. Y AREMA, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 12492 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009

Page 7 of 9 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Response to Jane Doe's Motion to Provide Recently Obtained Affidavit of Epstein Page 7 of9 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 record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by ""Vh- CM/ECF on this -S day of August 2009 Respectfully submitted, By: ---1--'-=--- ROBERT D CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida B No. 224162 rcrit@bc claw.com DAVID A. YAREMA, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 12492 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax Counsel for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1650 Suite 2218 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: 954-522-3456 305-931-2200 Fax: 954-527-8663 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaint/ff in Related Case No. [email protected] 08-80893 Counsel/or Plaint/Ifs Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009

Page 8 of 9 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80 I I 9-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Response to Jane Doe's Motion to Provide Recently Obtained Affidavit of Epstein Page 8 of9 In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P .A 2290 10th Avenue North Suite 404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 561-582-7600 Fax: 561-588-8819 Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 [email protected] Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 561-686-6300 Fax: 561-383-9424 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff, C.MA. Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-202-6360 Fax: 561-828-0983 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Ricci-Leopold, P.A. Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P .A 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F [email protected] Counsel for Plaint/ff in Related Case No. 08-80469 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian A venue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009