1 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, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, ____________________________________/ PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 4’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Protective Order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and states as follows: 1. By now, this Court is familiar with Jeffrey Epstein’s practice of intimidating and harassing his victims, as well as the Plaintiffs’ level of fear of Jeffrey Epstein. See, e.g. Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102’s Motion for No-Contact Order (D.E. 113); Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel and/or Identify Plaintiffs in the Style of this Case (D.E. 144); Plaintiffs Jane Does’ 2-7 Motion for Protective Order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 223); Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2-8’s Motion for Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009

Page 1 of 6 2 Protective Order as to Jeffrey Epstein’s Attendance at Deposition of Plaintiffs, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 292); Affidavit of Dr. Kliman (D.E. 223, Exh. A). 2. On September 16, 2009, Jeffrey Epstein’s conduct reached a new low when he recklessly violated (i) this Court’s No-Contact Order dated July 31, 2009; and (2) a written stipulation between the parties that Jeffrey Epstein would not attend the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 or be seen by Jane Doe No. 4 while attending her deposition. 3. Prior to the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective Order to preclude Jeffrey Epstein from attending the depositions of the Plaintiffs. The Motion was filed for the specific purpose of preventing Jeffrey Epstein from intimidating or harassing the Plaintiffs as he has repeatedly done in the past. As the Motion had not been adjudicated prior to the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, Plaintiff’s counsel stipulated with defense counsel that “Jeffrey Epstein will not attend the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4.” It was further stipulated that Jeffrey Epstein may listen to the deposition by telephone or view a videofeed of the deposition, but under no circumstances was he to be seen by our client while attending the deposition. (See Exhibit “C”, email of September 15, 2009). These were express conditions agreed to by counsel before Jane Doe No. 4 would appear for deposition on September 16, 2009. 4. The deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 was scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on September 16, 2009 at 350 Australian Ave South, Suite 115, West Palm Beach, Florida. 5. At approximately 1:00 p.m. on September 16, 2009, Jane Doe No. 4 and her counsel were walking in the lobby of 350 Australian Ave South, Suite 115, West Palm Beach, Florida, toward the ground-floor conference room where her deposition was to be held.1 1 Defendant’s counsel set the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 for the same office building where Jeffrey Epstein has an office. Just a Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009

Page 2 of 6 3 few feet away from this conference room, Jeffrey Epstein crossed paths with Jane Doe No. 4. Jeffrey Epstein stopped walking and began staring at her. He intimidated her until she began to cry. Jeffrey Epstein made no immediate attempt to walk away from our client. Instead, he stopped and continued to stare at her until she ran away. Jeffrey Epstein was accompanied by what appeared to be his bodyguard. See Declaration of Adam Horowitz, counsel for Jane Doe No. 4, Exhibit “A”. 6. Jane Doe No. 4 became an emotional wreck upon being stared at by Jeffrey Epstein, whom she believed she would not encounter. After attempting to console his client, Plaintiff’s counsel cancelled the deposition after a brief discussion with defense counsel about the events that occurred in the lobby. See Transcript of Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, Exhibit “B”. 7. Jeffrey Epstein’s contact with and intimidation of Jane Doe No. 4 is in direct violation of this Court’s No-Contact Order dated July 31, 2009. In that Order, this Court stated that Jeffrey Epstein shall have no “direct or indirect contact” with the Plaintiffs. (D.E. 238). 8. The July 31, 2009 Order mirrored the June 30, 2008 criminal sentence entered by Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillio, wherein she instructed Jeffrey Epstein that he shall have “no direct or indirect contact” with the Plaintiffs. (D.E. 238) 9. There can be no doubt that Jeffrey Epstein knew where Jane Doe No. 4 would be at 1 p.m. on September 16, 2009. Of all of the places he could have been, he chose to be at the location of her deposition in flagrant disregard of two (2) No-Contact Orders and the stipulation of the parties in this case. Even worse, when he saw Jane Doe No. 4, he chose to stop and stare her down to the point of intimidation until she began to cry and flee. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009

Page 3 of 6 4 10. This Court has discretion to enter a protective order to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment or oppression. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). In this regard, the Court has discretion for cause shown to, inter alia, designate the persons who may attend depositions, and specify the time and place of discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1)(A) and (E). Additionally, this Court has authority to sanction a party for civil contempt for violating the terms of a court order. See Sizzler Family Steak Houses v. Western Sizzlin Steak House, Inc., 793 F.2d 1529, 1534-35 (11th Cir. 1986) (attorneys’ fees may be awarded for civil contempt in failure to comply with court order). 11. Jeffrey Epstein is a felon and registered sex offender. Judicial oversight, at Jeffrey Epstein’s expense, is required to keep his conduct under control. 12. Given Jeffrey Epstein’s violation of this Court’s No-Contact Order and the written stipulation of the parties, appropriate sanctions and other relief are necessary to compensate Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 and prevent future misconduct by Defendant Epstein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4, respectfully requests (1) an award of sanctions, including attorneys’ fees and costs reasonably and necessarily incurred by Plaintiff due to Defendant’s non-compliance with the Court’s No-Contact Order; (2) an Order excusing Jane Doe No. 4 from her deposition on September 16, 2009, due to Defendant’s violation of the No- Contact Order and defense counsel’s breach of his promise to Plaintiff’s counsel that Defendant would not be seen at Plaintiff’s deposition; (3) an order directing that any depositions of Plaintiffs in the future be at a court reporter’s office selected by Plaintiffs’ counsel; (4) appointment of a special master to preside at Plaintiffs’ depositions and control the proceeding, to be paid for by Defendant; and (5) all other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009

Page 4 of 6 5 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3 Undersigned counsel has conferred with Defendant’s counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion, and has been unable to do so. Dated: September 17, 2009. Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Adam D. Horowitz Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) [email protected] MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 17, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. /s/ Adam D. Horowitz Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009

Page 5 of 6 6 SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Bradley James Edwards [email protected] Isidro Manuel Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009