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 253 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009

Page 1 of 5 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 253 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009

Page 2 of 5 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 THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein (“Defendant” or “Epstein”)’s Motions to Compel and/or Identify Jane Doe in the Style of this Case and Motion to Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 253 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009

Page 3 of 5 4 Identify Doe in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively Motion to Dismiss (DE 65 in 08-80119). The Court has reviewed the motions, responses, and replies, and is otherwise fully advised in the premesis. Plaintiffs filed their respective suits under a pseudonym (although Defendant and his counsel are aware of Plaintiffs’ legal names) to prevent public disclosure of private, intimate facts pertaining to their alleged sexual abuse and exploitation by Defendant when they were minors. Plaintiffs claim that public disclosure of their legal names would create a substantial risk to them of further psychological harm. Defendant argues that the purpose of his motion to identify is to obtain discovery related to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ respective complaints and to properly defend and investigate the matters that have been filed against him. Defendant claims that Plaintiffs “gather together in a continued effort to stonewall and prevent discovery of their past medical, psychological and employment histories.” (DE 247 at 4). Defendant states that he will withdraw his request for Plaintiffs to be identified in the styles of their respective cases if he is permitted to conduct the necessary and regular discovery related to Plaintiffs’ allegations in their complaints. (DE 247 at 5-6). Defendant argues that failure to allow him discovery is severely prejudicing him. The Court agrees that Defendant is entitled to discovery relating to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaints. However, it also acknowleges Plaintiff’s concerns regarding public disclosure of their legal names. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Motions to Compel and/or Identify Jane Doe in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify Doe in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 253 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009

Page 4 of 5 5 Discovery, or Alternatively Motion to Dismiss (DE 65 in 08-80119) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: Based upon Defendant’s agreement, the plaintiffs need not be identified by their legal names in the styles of these cases. As to third party discovery, Defendant shall style any subpoenas to third parties for documents or depositions with the case number and style “In Re [plaintiff’s legal name].” Further, the subpoenas to third parties shall not make reference to or identify Defendant by name. Defendant’s alternative motion to dismiss sua sponte is denied. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 7 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 253 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009