Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 1 of 33 JANE DOE NO. 2, V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I ------------- Related Cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993,08-80811,08-80893,09-80469, 09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. I ------------- SEP 11 2009 Defendant Epstein's Emergency Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Motion For Protective Order {DE 292) And Emergency Motion To Allow The Attendance Of Jeffrey Epstein At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs And Response In Opposition To Plaintiffs', Jane Doe Nos. 2-8, Motion For Protective Order As To Jeffrey Epstein's Attendance At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs, With Incorporated Memorandum of Law Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, by and through his undersigned counsel, and pursuant to all applicable rules, including Local Rule 7 .1 ( e) and Local Rule 12, hereby files and serves his Emergency Motion To Strike Plaintiffs Motion For Protective Order (DE 292) And Emergency Motion To Allow The Attendance Of Jeffrey Epstein At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs And Response In Opposition To Plaintiffs', Jane Doe Nos. 2-8, Motion For Protective Order As To Jeffrey Epstein's Attendance At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs. In support, Epstein states: Introduction and Background 1. On August 19, 2009, Defendant sent a Notice for Taking the Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 for September 16, 2009. See Exhibit "1" Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 2 of 33 Page 2 2. Additionally, notices were sent out in other cases in connection with deposing additional Plaintiffs. 3. No objection(s) was/were received for Jane Doe No. 4, which was the only deposition set relative to the Jane Doe 2-8 Plaintiffs. 4. On August 27, 2009, the undersigned counsel sent a letter to counsel for Jane Doe No. 4 concerning her deposition and the scheduling of same on the above date. See Exhibit "2". 5. No response was received until counsel for Jane Doe No. 4 called on September 8, 2009, approximately eight days prior to the scheduled deposition, to indicate that they now had an objection and would be filing a motion for protective order seeking to prevent Epstein from attending the deposition. Once again, Plaintiffs are attempting to stifle this litigation through their own delay tactics during discovery. Plaintiffs wish not only to attempt to force Epstein to trial without any meaningful discovery, but now wish to ban Epstein from any depositions, thereby preventing him from assisting his attorneys in his very own defense. What's next - will Plaintiffs seek to prevent Epstein from attending any of the trials that result from the lawsuits Jane Does 2-8 have initiated? Plaintiffs see millions of dollars in damages, both compensatory and punitive, against Defendant. 6. Defendant is filing this emergency motion and his immediate response to the motion for protective order to guarantee his right to be present and assist counsel in deposing not only Jane Doe No. 4, but other plaintiffs and witnesses in these cases. To hold otherwise would violate Epstein's due process rights to defend the very allegations Plaintiffs have alleged against him. Does a Defendant not have a right to be present at depositions or other court proceedings to assist counsel with the defense of his case? Does a Defendant, no matter what the charges or the allegations, have full and unbridled access to the court system and the proceedings it governs, Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 3 of 33 Page 3 including discovery? The short answer is unequivocally, yes. To hold otherwise would be a direct violation of Epstein's constitutional due process rights. Plaintiffs' attempts to play fast and loose with the law should not be tolerated. 7. As the court is aware, plaintiffs and defendants routinely attend depositions of parties and other witnesses in both State and Federal court proceedings. In fact, parties have a right under the law to attend such depositions. 8. As the court will note from Exhibit 2, counsel for the Defendant specifically stated that "Please be advised that Mr. Epstein plans to be in attendance at the deposition of your client. He does not intend to engage in any conversation with your client. However, it is certainly his right as a party-defendant in the lawsuit to be present and to assist counsel in the defense of any case." Despite this right, Plaintiffs continue to attempt to control how discovery is conducted in this case and how this court has historically governed discovery. 9. Interestingly, in Jane Doe II, the state court case, attorney Sid Garcia took the deposition of the Defendant and his client, Jane Doe II, was present throughout the deposition. This is despite her claims of "emotional trauma" set forth in her complaint. Jane Doe No. II is also a Plaintiff in the federal court proceeding Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-CIV- 80469). Is this court going to start a precedent where it allows Plaintiffs to attend the depositions of Jeffrey Epstein, but not allow Epstein to attend their depositions (i.e., the very Plaintiffs that have asserted claims against him for millions of dollars)? This court should not condone such a practice. 10. The undersigned is well aware of the court's No-Contact Order entered on July 31, 2009 (DE 23 8). A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit "3". In fact, the order provides that the defendant have no direct or indirect contact with the plaintiffs, nor communications with Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 4 of 33 Page4 the plaintiffs either directly or indirectly. However, there is no prohibition against Mr. Epstein's attendance at a deposition where, as is reflected in the order, the communication will be made to the plaintiff solely through defense counsel with one or more of plaintiffs' counsel of record present in the room in a videotaped deposition. Obviously, any inappropriate contact or communication will certainly be flagged by the attorneys in attendance. As such, Plaintiffs really have the cart before the horse in this instance (i.e., nothing prevents Epstein from attending these depositions and, to the extent Plaintiffs believe that something improper occurs at any deposition, only then can that circumstance be addressed by a motion such as the instant one.) 11. Next, Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8, attempt to use the Affidavit of Dr. Kliman for every motion for protective order/objection filed to date. This also includes the two most recent motions, which attempt to prevent Defendant's investigators from doing their job, such that the Defendant and his attorneys can defend the claims asserted in these cases. Plaintiffs lose sight of the fact that the court, in discussing the Non-Prosecution Agreement, inquired as to whether Epstein and his counsel could fully defend the case, which included discovery and investigation. All plaintiffs' counsel and the USAO responded in the affirmative. In fact, Plaintiffs universally agreed at the June 12, 2009 hearing on Defendant's Motion to Stay that regular discovery could proceed. See Composite Exhibit "4" at pages 26-30 & 33-34. For instance, the court asked Plaintiffs' attorneys the following questions: The Court: [] So again, I just want to make sure that if the cases go forward and if Mr. Epstein defends the case as someone ordinarily would defend a case being prosecuted against him or her, that that in and of itself is not going to cause him to be subject to criminal prosecution? (Ex. "A," p.26). *** The Court: You agree he should be able to take the ordinary steps that a defendant in a civil action can take and not be concerned about having to be prosecuted? (Ex. "A," p.27). Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 5 of 33 Page 5 *** The Court: Okay. But again, you're in agreement with everyone else so far that's spoken on behalf of a plaintiff that defending the case in the normal course of conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? (Ex. "A," p.30). Mr. Horowitz - counsel for Jane Does 2-7: Subject to your rulings, of course, yes. (Ex. "A," p.30). *** The Court: But you're not taking the position that other than possibly doing something in litigation which is any other discovery, motion practice, investigations that someone would ordinarily do in the course of defending a civil case would constitute a violation of the agreement? (Ex. "A," p.34). Ms. Villafana: No, your honor. I mean, civil litigation is civil litigation, and being able to take discovery is part of what civil litigation is all about.. .. But. .. , Mr. Epstein is entitled to take the deposition of a Plaintiff and to subpoena records, etc. (Ex. "A," p.34) 12. It is clear from the transcript attached as Exhibit "4" that each of the Plaintiffs' attorneys, including Mr. Horowitz for Jane Does 2-8, expected and conceded that regular/traditional discovery would take place (i.e., discovery, motion practice, depositions, requests for records, and investigations). 13. Importantly, Plaintiffs' counsel advised the undersigned that they coordinate their efforts in joint conference calls at least two times per month. At recent depositions of two witnesses, Alfredo Rodriguez and Juan Alessi, five different plaintiffs' attorneys questioned the witnesses for approximately six to eight hours, often repeating the same or similar questions that had previously been asked. 14. Clearly, the Plaintiffs' counsel wish to control discovery and how the Defendant is allowed to obtain information to defend these cases. However, the court has ruled on a number of these issues as follows: A. Plaintiffs' counsels sought to preclude the Defendant from serving third party subpoenas and allowing only Plaintiffs' counsel to obtain Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 6 of 33 Page 6 depositions and those materials and "filter them" to defense counsel. That motion was denied, and the court tailored a method such that the Defendant could obtain the records directly. B. Plaintiffs' counsels sought to limit the psychological psychiatric examination in C.M.A. v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen (Case No. 08- CIV -80811 ), as to time, subject matter and scope. However, Magistrate Johnson entered an order denying the requested restrictions. C. Other Plaintiffs' attorneys have said that they object to requested psychological exam of their client(s), thus motions for such exams will now need to be filed; yet all seek millions of dollars in damages for alleged psychological and emotional trauma. D. Many Plaintiffs' object to discovery regarding current and past employment (although they are seeking loss of income, both in past and future). E. All Plaintiffs object to prior sexual history, consensual and forced as being irrelevant, although in many of the medical records that are now being obtained, as well as the psychiatric exams done by Dr. Kliman, there is reference to rape, molestation, abusive relationships (both physical and verbal), prior abortions, illegal drugs and alcohol abuse. 15. Clearly, Plaintiffs wish to make allegations; however, they forget that they must meet their burden by proving same. Meeting that burden and disproving those allegations is not possible if this court allows Plaintiffs to stifle and/or control the discovery process. 16. Specifically, with regard to Jane Doe No. 4, which is the deposition set for next week, September 16, 2009, the plaintiff has in her past (see affidavit of Richard C.W. Hall, M.D., an expert psychiatrist retained by Defendant to conduct exams on various claimants.) See Exhibit "5" A. Sought counseling due to a dysfunctional home situation, specifically with regard to her father. She described herself as being angry, bitter, depressed and having body image problems; B. Had an ex-boyfriend, Preston Vinyard, who was, on information and belief, a drug dealer who she lived with; C. Had drug and alcohol problems herself; and Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 7 of 33 Page 7 D. Spoke with two psychiatrists when she was sixteen or seventeen (before this lawsuit!) and did not reference Epstein, but did reference her boyfriend and family issues. 17. There are police reports that reflect that: A. In September 2004, a battery report was filed regarding Jane Doe No. 4 and Vinyard based on an argument where he grabbed her by the neck and began spitting on her and calling her a cheater. B. Also in September 2004, there was a domestic violence file opened where Vinyard was physically and verbally abusive to Jane Doe No. 4, his girlfriend at the time. There is reference that the two started a serious relationship in January 2002, when she was only fourteen (14) years old. C. Vinyard was arrested in December 2003, and charged with reckless driving and leaving the scene of the accident with Jane Doe No. 4, when their vehicle hit a tree and they fled. 18. Moreover, an ex-boyfriend of Jane Doe No. 4 died in a DUI accident and it took her two years to get over his death, and another good friend of hers, "Jen," died in an automobile accident involving drinking. Within her Amended Complaint and Answers to Interrogatories, she indicates that she went to Epstein's house on several occasions. However, at no time did she call the police, at no time did she report any traumatic or severe emotional trauma, nor alleged coercion, force or improper behavior by Epstein until she got a "lawyer" and is now pursuing claims for millions of dollars. Epstein's assistance to his attorneys at these depositions regarding the above issues is not only a constitutional due process right afforded to him but essential given the fact that this court has ruled that Plaintiffs' depositions can only occur one time, no "second bite" absent a court order. 19. Given the breadth of the allegations made against Epstein and the substantial damages sought, Epstein has an unequivocal and constitutional right to be present at any deposition such that he can assist his counsel with the defense of these cases. See infra. Dr. Hall Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 8 of 33 Page 8 also prepared affidavits regarding Jane Does 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, which are attached to DE 247. Memorandum Of Law 20. Plaintiffs' motion is required to be denied as they have failed to meet their burden showing the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to establish good cause to support a protective order which would grant the extraordinarily rare relief of preventing a named party from attending in person the deposition of another named party. Also requiring denial of Plaintiffs' motion is the fact that it seeks to exclude Epstein from all the depositions of all the Plaintiffs in actions before this Court. Such relief is unprecedented and attempts to have this Court look at the Plaintiffs' collectively as opposed to analyzing each case based on facts versus broad speculation whether "extraordinary circumstances" exist on a case by case basis. In other words, the standard is such that the Court would be required to determine whether each Plaintiff has met her burden, should the Court consider adopting such extraordinary relief. On its face, the motion does not meet the necessary burden as to Jane Doe 4, or Jane Does 2, 3, 5, 6, or 7. Discussion of Law Requiring the Denial of the Requested Protective Order Rule 26(c)(l)(E), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2009), governing protective orders, provides in relevant part that: (1) In General A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending--or as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will be taken. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: * * * * (E) designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is conducted; Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 9 of 33 Page 9 * * * * In seeking to prevent the Defendant from being present in the room where the Plaintiffs are being deposed, Plaintiffs generally rely on treatise material from Wright & Miller, 8 Federal Practice & Procedure Civ.2d, §2041, and cases cited therein. The case of Gaella v. Onassis, 487 F .2d 986, at 997 (2d Cir. 1973), cited by Plaintiffs, makes clear that the exclusion of a party from a deposition "should be ordered rarely indeed." Unlike the Gaella case, there is no showing by each of the Plaintiffs that there has been any conduct by Epstein, in rightfully defending the actions filed against him, reflecting "an irrepressible intent to continue . . . harassment" of any Plaintiff or a complete disregard of the judicial process, i.e. prior alleged conduct versus any action/conduct displayed in this or other cases that would justify extraordinary relief. There is absolutely no basis in the record to indicate that Epstein will act other than properly and with the proper decorum at the depositions of the Plaintiffs and abide in all respects with the No-Contact Order. Wherefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court enter an order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order, provide that Epstein is permitted to attend the depositions of the Plaintiffs that have asserted claims against him in the related matters, and for such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. Robert D. er· on, Jr. Michael J. 1ke Attorney for Defendant Epstein Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 10 of 33 Page 10 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was hand-delivered to the Clerk of the Court as required by the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida and electronically mailed to all counsel of record identified on the following Service List on this 11th day of September, 2009. Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 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 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] Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone:954-522-3456 Fax: 954-527-8663 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893 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] Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- Shipley, 80469 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 11 of 33 Page 11 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. Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 561-684-6500 Fax: 561-515-2610 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 rj osefs [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 j [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 08804 [email protected] [email protected] By: -----1,L-.:,:;;.._ __ _ ROBERT D CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida B No. 224162 rcrit@bc law.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 12 of 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ______________ _,/ Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591,09-80656,09-80802,09-81092 ______________ _,! RE-NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney will take the videotaped deposition of: DEPONENT DATE &TIME Jane Doe #4 September 16, 2009 c/o Mermelstein & Horowitz PA at 1:00 PM 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 LOCATION OF DEPOSITION Prose Court Reporting 250 Australian A venue South Suite #115 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 upon oral examination, before Prose Court Reporting Agency, a Notary Public, or any other officer authorized by law to take depositions in th State of Florida. The oral, videotaped examination is being taken for the purpose of di covery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the applicable tu es of Rules of Court . . C 'tton, Jr. Attorney for Defendant Epstein Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 13 of 33 Certificate of Service I HEREBY 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 electronic mail (e-mail) on this 19h day of August, 2009 By. ..____,,__. _____ _ R ON, JR., ESQ. Fl 162 [email protected] . MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTIIER & 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. AdamD. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 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 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone:954-522-3456 Fax: 954-527-8663 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 14 of 33 Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. 2290 10th Avenue North Suite404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 561-582-7600 Fax: 561-588-8819 Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 reelrh [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.M.A. 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 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 Plaintiff 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] Counselfor Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 15 of 33 , BURMAN, CRITTON LUTTIER& COLEMAN, LLP J. MICHAEL BURMAN. P.A.'-2 GREGORY W. COLEMAN, P.A. ROBERT D. CRITTON. JR., P.A. 1 BERNARD LEBEDEKER. MARKT. LUTTIER. P.A. JEFFREY C. PEPIN MICHAEL). PIKE HEATHER MCNAMARA RUDA DAVID YAREMA 1FLORIDA BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER. 2ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN FLOR.I DA AND COLORADO Sent by E.Mail and U.S. Mail Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 YOUR TRUSTED ADVOCATES A LIMITED LlABILITY PARTNERSHIP August 27, 2009 Re: Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein Dear Stuart: ADELQ1)1 J. BENAVENTE PARALEGAL/INVESTIGATOR. JESSICA CADWELL BOBBIE M. MCKENNA ASHLIE STOKEN-BARING BETTY STOKES PARALEGALS RITA H. BUDNYK OF COUNSEL ED RlCCI SPECIAL CONSUMER JUSTICE COUNSEL Please be advised that Mr. Epstein plans to be in attendance at the deposition of your client. He does not intend to engage in any conversation with your client. However, it is certainly his right as a party-defendant in the lawsuit to be present and to assist counsel in the defense of any case. RDC/clz cc: Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. z 303 BANYAN BOULEVARD • SUITE 400 • WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 • PHONE: 561-842-2820 • FAX: 561-844-6929 • [email protected] WWW.BCLCLAW.COM Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 16 of 33 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009

Page 1 of 5 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON I -------------- JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON I -------------- JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON I -------------- JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 1 3 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 17 of 33 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009

Page 2 of 5 Defendant. I -------------- JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON I -------------- JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON I -------------- C.M.A., Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON I -------------- JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 2 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 18 of 33 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009

Page 3 of 5 Defendants. I --------------- DOE II, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON I --------------- JANE DOE NO. 101, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON I --------------- JANE DOE NO. 102 Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 09- 80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON I --------------- 0 RD ER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Jane Doe. No 101 and 102's Motion for No-Contact Order (DE 113) and Plaintiffs Jane Does' 2-7 Notice of Joinder in Plaintiffs' Motion (DE 145). The Court has reviewed the motions, responses, and replies (DE's 113, 127, 136, 145, 3 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 19 of 33 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009

Page 4 of 5 233), and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Plaintiffs seek a Court order prohibiting Defendant or his agents from communicating with Plaintiffs directly or indirectly. Defendant. Defendant opposes the request as "needless, unwarranted and excessive." (DE 127 at 5). Nonetheless, Defendant states in his response that "neither Mr. Epstein nor his attorneys, nor their agents intend to have any direct or indirect contact with Plaintiffs counsels' clients." (DE 127 at 4). The Court notes that Defendant is already under court order not to have direct or indirect contact with any victims. See Transcript of Plea Conference at 20. During the course of Defendant's state plea conference of June 30, 2009, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillio explicitly instructed Defendant as follows: Court: Okay. D is, you shall not have any contact with the victim, are there more than one victim? Ms. Belohlavek: There's several. Court: Several, all of the victims. So this should be plural. I'm making that plural. You are not to have any contact direct or indirect, and in this day and age I find it necessary to go over exactly what we mean by indirect. By indirect, we mean no text messages, no e-mail, no Face Book, no My Space, no telephone calls, no voice mails, no messages through carrier pigeon, no messages through third parties, no hey would you tell so and so for me, no having a friend, acquaintance or stranger approach any of these victims with a message of any sort from you, is that clear? Defendant: Yes, ma'am. Id. at 20-21. In light of Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion for no contact order, suggesting that the state court's order only applies to some victims and that parties are always allowed to contact each other directly, the Court finds it necessary to state clearly that Defendant is under this 4 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 20 of 33 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009

Page 5 of 5 court's order not to have direct or indirect contact with any plaintiffs, regardless of the intended scope of the state court's order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: Plaintiffs Jane Doe. No 101 and 102's Motion for No-Contact Order (DE 113) is GRANTED. Defendant is hereby prohibited from communicating with all plaintiffs directly or indirectly1, either personally or through agents, except that Defendant may communicate with plaintiffs only through plaintiffs' attorneys of record, for the duration of this Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 31 st day of July, 2009 Copies furnished to: all counsel of record KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 1See infra, excerpt of Transcript of Plea Conference at 20-21, for examples of indirect contact. 5 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 21 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JANE DOE, et vs. al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA Plaintiffs, JUNE 12, 2009 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, APPEARANCES: Defendant. X TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. Mermelstein & Horowitz 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33160 305.931.2200 For Jane Doe BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Jane Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 954.522.3456 ISIDRO M. GARCIA, ESQ. Garcia Elkins Boehringer 224 Datura Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Jane DOE II 561.832.8033 RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. 2290 10th Avenue North Lake Worth, FL 33461 For C.M.A. 561.582.7600 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 1 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 22 of 33 1 THE COURT: That's not my concern. So, again, I just 2 want to make sure that if the cases go forward and if 3 Mr. Epstein defends the case as someone ordinarily would defend 4 a case that's being prosecuted against him or her, that that in 5 and of itself is not going to cause him to be subject to 6 criminal prosecution. 7 8 9 chime in? 10 MR. JOSEFSBERG: I agree, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any other plaintiff's counsel want to MR. WILLITS: Richard Willits on behalf of C.M.A .. I 11 would join, to weigh in on what Mr. Josefsberg said. 12 13 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, I could not hear. THE COURT: We'll get him to a microphone. 14 Mr. Willits is speaking. 15 MR. WILLITS: On behalf of my client, C.M.A., we join 16 in what Mr. Josefsberg said, and we also want to point out 17 something to the Court. 18 First, we want to make a representation to the Court, 19 we have no intention of complaining to the U.S. Attorney's 20 Office, never had that intention, don't have that intention in 21 the future, but, of course, subject to what occurs in the 22 future. 23 I want to point out to the Court that Mr. Epstein went 24 into this situation with his eyes wide open, represented by 25 counsel, knowing that civil suits had to be coming. If he TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 26 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 23 of 33 1 didn't know it, his lawyers knew it. 2 He appears to be having second thoughts now about he 3 could have negotiated this way or he could have negotiated that 4' way with the U.S. Attorney's Office. And they want to impose 5 their second thoughts on the innocent plaintiffs. We don't 6 think that's fair. We think it's in the nature of invited 7 error, if there was any error whatsoever. 8 9 Thank you. THE COURT: You agree he should be able to take the 10 ordinary steps that a defendant in a civil action can take and 11 not be concerned about having to be prosecuted? 12 MR. WILLITS: Of course. And we say the same thing 13 Mr. Josefsberg said. It's all subject to your rulings and the 14 direction of this Court as to what is proper and what is not 15 proper. And we're prepared to abide by the rulings of this 16 Court, and we have no intention of running to the State's 17 Attorney. 18 19 20 21 THE COURT: The U.S. Attorney? MR. WILLITS: I'm sorry. The U.S. Attorney. THE COURT: Mr. Garcia. MR. GARCIA: Thank you, Your Honor. 22 If I may briefly, I think perhaps defense counsel 23 forgot about this, but on pages 17 and 19 of my memorandum of 24 law in opposition to the motion to dismiss, I did make 25 reference to the non-prosecution agreement, and I did say that TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REAL TIME TRANSCRIPTION 27 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 24 of 33 1 it, it doesn't relate to our clients. 2 THE COURT: Okay. But, again, you're in agreement 3 with everyone else so far that's spoken on behalf of a 4 plaintiff that defending the case in the normal course of 5 conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? 6 7 yes. 8 9 10 MR. HOROWITZ: Subject to your rulings, of course, THE COURT: Thank you. Anyone else have anything to say from the plaintiffs? Ms. Villafana, if you would be so kind as to maybe 11 help us out. I appreciate the fact that you're here, and I 12 know you're not a party to these cases and under no obligation 13 to respond to my inquiries. But as I indicated, it would be 14 helpful for me to understand the Government's position. 15 MS. VILLAFANA: Thank you, Your Honor. And we, of 16 course, are always happy to try to help the Court as much as 17 possible. But we are not a party to any of these lawsuits, and 18 in some ways we are at a disadvantage because we don't have 19 access. My access is limited to what's on Pacer. So I don't 20 really know what positions Mr. Epstein may have taken either in 21 correspondence or in discovery responses that aren't filed in 22 the case file. 23 But your first order was really just what do you think 24 about a stay, and then the second order related to this hearing 25 and asked a much more specific question, which is whether we TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 30 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 25 of 33 1 we had filed that response. And what we said in the response 2 to the motion to stay is that the reason why he wants to stay 3 the litigation is so that the non-prosecution agreement 4 te~minates based on a period of time, as he puts it. And then 5 afterwards he would be able to come in here and make all of 6 these arguments that clearly violate the non-prosecution 7 agreement but we would be without remedy. 8 THE COURT: But you're not taking the position that 9 other than possibly doing something in litigation which is a 10 violation of an express provision of the non-prosecution 11 agreement, any other discovery, motion practice, investigations 12 that someone would ordinarily do in the course of defending a 13 civil case would constitute a violation of the agreement? 14 MS. VILLAFANA: No, Your Honor. I mean, civil 15 litigation is civil litigation, and being able to take 16 discovery is part of what civil litigation is about. And while 17 there may be, for example, if someone were to try to subpoena 18 the Government, we would obviously resist under statutory 19 reasons, all that sort of stuff. But, no, Mr. Epstein is 20 entitled to take the deposition of a plaintiff and to subpoena 21 records, etc. 22 THE COURT: And even if he seeks discovery from a 23 Government agency, you have the right to resist it under the 24 rules of procedure but that would not constitute a violation, 25 again unless there's a provision in the prosecution agreement TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NElWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 34 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009

Page 26 of 33 Aug '04 09 .04:.5.4R Richard_ C. Hall MD case !:J:ue-cv-8011 ~H<.AM uocument 24 7-5 407-322-8169 p.2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009

Page 1 of 8 Jane -qoe_ #~ v_ Jeffrey Epstein AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD C.W. HALL, M.D. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF SEMINOLE On this day personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, Richard C.W. Hal].. M.D., who, being by me first duly sworn under oath deposes and says: 1. My name is Richard C.W. Ha.ll1 M.D. I am over the age of majority, and make this affidavit and declaration upon the basis of personal knowledge of the factual matters contained herein. 2. I have maintained a private practice in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry since 1996. 3. L also, currently serve as a Courtesy Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Florida., College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida; Affiliate Professor, Dept of ·:.1 Psydtlatry and Behavioral Medicine, University of South Florida; and Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Medical Education, University of Central Florida College Medicine. 4. I received my undergraduate degree from the Johns Hopkins University and 1 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009