UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. _________________________________/ Related cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 98-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 PLAINTIFF, C.M.A.’S, RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW (DE 273) Plaintiff, C.M.A., by and through her undersigned attorneys, hereby files her Response to Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S Reply to Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Emergency Motion For Independent Examination of Plaintiff With Incorporated Memorandum of Law (DE 273), and in support there of states as follows: 1. Defendant, EPSTEIN, filed on July 29, 2009 his Emergency Motion for Independent Exam and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (DE 228). 2. Plaintiff, C.M.A., filed on August 8, 2009, her Response and Incorporated Motion for Protective Order Regarding, Defendant, EPSTEIN’S Emergency Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2009

Page 1 of 8 Motion for Independent Examination of Plaintiff with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (DE 254). 3. Defendant, EPSTEIN, filed on August 17, 2009 his Reply to Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Independent Examination of Plaintiff, With Incorporated Memorandum of Law (DE 273). 4. Plaintiff files the instant Response to address the arguments raised in Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order regarding Defendant’s proposed mental examination of Plaintiff by his retained psychiatrist, Ryan Hall, M.D. 5. One of the grounds originally cited in Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order which sought to prevent the mental examination of Plaintiff going forward was the fact that Plaintiff had been admitted to the hospital for treatment of a serious medical condition and resulting surgery. As Plaintiff is no longer in the hospital, Plaintiff’s motion to prevent the examination from going forward until such time as she was discharged from the hospital is now moot. 6. Additionally, Plaintiff sought permission to have a representative from her legal team present at said examination. Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant have resolved this issue by agreement whereby Defendant will provide, at his expense, a video feed and monitor in an adjacent room for Plaintiff’s representative’s use. Accordingly, the Court need not decide whether Plaintiff is entitled to have a representative present with her in the examination room. 7. Plaintiff has agreed to submit to a mental examination by Defendant’s psychiatrist on September 8, 2009. Plaintiff is still in need of and is still Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2009

Page 2 of 8 seeking an order limiting the scope of the proposed examination and imposing reasonable time limits for its occurrence. 8. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order: a. Limiting the time for conducting the examination, including any testing, to a maximum of 6 hours; and b. Limiting the scope of same to preclude Plaintiff from being subjected to repeated questioning on multiple occasions regarding personal and highly sensitive areas of inquiry including Plaintiff’s medical history, psychiatric history, sexual history, social history, sexual abuse history, substance abuse history, etc. 9. In his Reply to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order, after several pages of the now ubiquitous leveling of both unfounded and irrelevant arguments regarding Plaintiff’s alleged strategy to stall discovery in this case, mudslinging and character assassination attempts by Defendant, arguments germane to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order finally materialize several pages into EPSTEIN’S Reply. 10. Unfortunately, Defendant mischaracterizes the relief sought by Plaintiff in her Motion for Protective Order. Plaintiff is not seeking to prevent the discovery of relevant areas of inquiry. Rather, Plaintiff is seeking to limit the number of times Defendant is entitled to delve into those areas of inquiry. 11. Exceptionally telling is EPSTEIN’s utter failure to rebut or even address Plaintiff’s concern that Defendant intends to subject her to multiple Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2009

Page 3 of 8 interrogations regarding the identical and highly personal and private subject matters. 12. Rather, Defendant seems to be suggesting that he is entitled to delve into these areas of inquiry at Plaintiff’s deposition, which is now scheduled for September 3, 2009, and then turn around a week later and have Dr. Hall inquire at great lengths over the course of his highly intrusive examination into the exact same subject matter. Additionally, Dr. Hall has apparently requested that Plaintiff fill out 24 pages of questions regarding the exact same subject matters before his proposed 6 to 8 hour examination. 13. It is Plaintiff’s position that such an exercise can only serve to further victimize the victim of repeated sexual offenses at the hands of EPSTEIN in hopes of manufacturing inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s claims in this case. Defendant’s goal in this regard is highly improper and unjustifiable. 14. In opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to limit the examination to 6 hours, Defendant’s citation to Lahr v. Fullbright & Jaworski, LLP , 164 F.R.D. 196, 202-204 (N.D. Texas 1995), Morton v. Haskell Co., No. 94-976-Civ-J-20, 1995 WL 819182 (N.D. Fla. September 12, 1995) and Mann v. Newport Tankers Corp., 96 F.R.D. 31 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) are both unpersuasive and easily distinguished. In Lahr, the court declined to limit a three hour clinical intake and evaluation by the defendant’s psychologist. Lahr, 164 F.R.D. at 201. In Morton, the court declined to limit a defense psychologist’s evaluation to one hour and declined to limit the evaluation to cover only one specific year, but did allow the presence of one of plaintiff’s treating Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2009

Page 4 of 8 physicians/psychologists/psychiatrists to be present in the examination room. Morton, 1995 WL 819182 at 3. Lastly, EPSTEIN cites Mann as “requiring Plaintiff to submit to a 2 day examination.” (DE 273, p. 5) Mann actually required a plaintiff to “submit himself at least two days prior to trial” for a defense examination, not submit himself for a two day examination. Mann, 96 F.R.D. at 33. 15. Furthermore, Plaintiff is not requesting a limitation of the examination to some arbitrary length. EPSTEIN’S own proposed examiner, Dr. Hall, in his initial affidavit stated that he anticipated the duration of his IME would be 6-8 hours (DE 228-5, p. 2). Now that Plaintiff seeks to limit the examination to the lower range of his request, Dr. Hall files a new affidavit stating that although examinations of this type usually take approximately six to seven hours, for reasons he does not disclose, the IME of Plaintiff will apparently take longer than normal. In fact, Dr. Hall now suggests the examination of Plaintiff could take up to 9 or more. (DE 274, 9-10). 16. Plaintiff respectfully suggests that this Court should exercise its “discretionary authority to impose a variety of conditions, which, balancing the factors in each individual case, ensure that the interests of justice are obtained” by limiting the total number hours for Defendant’s IME to 6 hours, including the administration of any standardized tests Dr. Hall wishes to have Plaintiff take. Morton, 1995 WL 819182 at 3, citing Tirado v. Erosa, 158 F.R.D. 294, 295-96 (S.D>N.Y. 1994). A limitation of 6 hours for the examination would allow even more time than the 4 hour limitation imposed in Trenary v. Busch Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2009

Page 5 of 8 Entertainment Corp., 2006 WL 333621 (M.D. Fla) and Tracey v. Sarasota County, 2006 WL 1678908 (M.D. Fla.). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, C.M.A., respectfully requests that this Court enter an order: a. Limiting the time for conducting the examination, including any testing, to a maximum of 6 hours; and b. Limiting the scope of same to preclude Plaintiff from being subjected to repeated questioning on multiple occasions regarding personal and highly sensitive areas of inquiry including Plaintiff’s medical history, psychiatric history, sexual history, social history, sexual abuse history, substance abuse history, etc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 27, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. /s/Jack P. Hill Jack Scarola Florida Bar No.: 169440 Jack P. Hill Florida Bar No.: 0547808 Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Phone: (561) 686-6300 Fax: (561) 383-9424 Attorneys for Plaintiff Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2009

Page 6 of 8 COUNSEL LIST Richard H. Willits, Esquire Richard H. Willits, P.A. 2290 10th Avenue North, Suite 404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 Phone: (561) 582-7600 Fax: (561) 588-8819 [email protected] Robert Critton, Esquire Michael J. Pike, Esquire Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 842-2820 Fax: (561) 844-6929 [email protected] [email protected] Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 863-9100 Fax: (561) 835-8691 [email protected] Bruce E. Reinhart, Esquire Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 South Australian Ave., Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 202-6360 Fax: (561) 828-0983 [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esquire Adam D. Horowitz, Esquire Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected] [email protected] Brad Edwards, Esquire Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 522-3456 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2009

Page 7 of 8 8 Fax: (954) 527-8663 [email protected] Paul G. Cassell, Esquire Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Phone: (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-6833 [email protected] Isidro M. Garcia, Esquire Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 832-7732 Fax: (561) 832-7137 [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg, Esquire Katherine W. Ezell, Esquire Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 358-2800 Fax: (305) 358-2382 [email protected] [email protected] Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2009