1 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, Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 246 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009

Page 1 of 6 2 Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 6, CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 246 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009

Page 2 of 6 3 Defendants. ____________________________________/ DOE II, CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 102 CASE NO.: 09- 80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF, C.M.A.’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE DEPOSITIONS OF SUSAN POPE AND DR. SERGE THYS THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff C.M.A.’s Emergency Motion for Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 246 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009

Page 3 of 6 4 Protective Order Regarding the Depositions of Susan Pope and Dr. Serge Thys, filed August 4, 2009. The Court has carefully considered the motion, the record, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. On Friday, July 31, Defendant unilaterally scheduled the deposition of Susan Pope, a mental health therapist, for Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., and the deposition of Dr. Serge Thys, a psychiatrist, for August 31, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. The Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion as as emergency only as to to the deposition of Susan Pope. On August 4, 2009, Plaintiff timely moved for a protective order as to the deposition of Susan Pope. By the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks a protective order to prevent the deposition of Pope, a mental health therapist, based on (1) Plaintiff’s Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages Provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (DE 113 in case no. 08- 80811) and (2) the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996). First, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s contention that her notice of conditional intent can be used as a shield against discovery that is relevant to the claims in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (DE 40). Absent an amended pleading or stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff's unilateral non-binding notice of intent cannot be used to preclude discovery in this case. In the absence of a stipulation or court order, Plaintiff’s notice can be withdrawn at any time. Plaintiff also claims that the Pope deposition should not be allowed to proceed because the information sought by Defendant is protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege. See Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 246 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009

Page 4 of 6 In Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 & 1209 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), 1 th the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 5 Jaffee, 518 U.S. 1; Fla. Stat. § 90.503. Blanket assertions of privilege are largely regarded as improper. See U.S. v. Finley, 434 F.2d 596, 597 (5 Cir. 1970) (blanket refusal to testify is th 1 “unacceptable and improper” utilization of vehicle to invoke attorney-client privilege); Wells v. Xpedx, 2007 WL 1200955, *4 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (“Blanket assertions of privilege [are] usually insufficient . . . During [the] deposition, Defendant may assert attorney-client privilege and work priduct privilege, if appropriate, as to any questions or requests for documents.”); U.S. v. Kowalik, 809 F.Supp. 1571, 1577 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (blanket refusal to produce records or to testify is insufficient to support a Fifth Amendment claim of privilege against self-incrimination). Rather, claims of privilege should be made on a question-by-question basis. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11 Cir. 1987) (Fifth Amendement privilege against th compulsory self-incrimination must be claimed “with respect to particular questions”); Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend, 2006 WL 4702150, *1 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (claims of work product privilege must be made on question-by-question basis); Kowalik, 809 F.Supp. at 1577. See also L.R. Appx A. Sec. V.A (explaining the procedure for invocation of privilege during deposition). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s emergency motion for a protective order to prevent the deposition of Susan Pope is denied. During the deposition, Plaintiff may assert psychotherapist- patient privilege, if appropriate, on a question-by-question basis. It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff C.M.A.’s August 4, 2009 Emergency Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 246 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009

Page 5 of 6 6 Motion for Protective Order Regarding the Deposition of Susan Pope is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 5 day of August, 2009 th _________________________________ KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge Copies furnished to: all counsel of record Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 246 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009