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 by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Response to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, and state as follows: PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 1. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”) has the gall to file a pre-emptive Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel following Epstein’s violation of this Court’s No- Contact Order (D.E. 305).1 2. There is no basis in law or fact for sanctions against the Plaintiff. It is Epstein who should be sanctioned by this Court as it was Epstein who violated the No-Contact Order and an express agreement between counsel that Epstein would not attend Jane Doe No. 4’s 1 Plaintiff filed her own Motion for Sanctions against Jeffrey Epstein on the same date. (D.E. 306). It appears to be Defendant’s belief that an award of sanctions should be based on a race to the courthouse. Plaintiff submits that such motions should be decided on their merits and the actual conduct of the parties. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009

Page 1 of 6 2 deposition, or even be seen by her at any time relative to her deposition. These were express conditions agreed to by both parties for the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 to take place on September 16, 2009. See 3. As set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, Epstein’s conduct of coming into contact with Jane Doe No. 4 at a time and place where he knew or should have known he would cross paths with Jane Doe No. 4, and then stopping to stare at and intimidate Jane Doe No. 4, is a violation of this Court’s No-Contact Order (D.E. 238). It is also a violation of the No-Contact Order entered in the criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein. (D.E. 306, Exhibit B). These No- Contact Orders were written in the broadest of terms, providing that Jeffrey Epstein shall have neither direct nor indirect contact with any of his victims, including Jane Doe No. 4. Exhibit “A”. Epstein violated this express agreement and condition to the deposition, distressing and intimidating Jane Doe No. 4, and it is he who should be sanctioned. Id 4. Nevertheless, at 1 p.m. on September 16, 2009, Jeffrey Epstein came into contact with Jane Doe No. 4 and her counsel at the site of her deposition, and stood mere feet away from the entrance to the ground-floor office where her deposition was going to be held. . 5. Jeffrey Epstein admits in his motion that he knew the time and location of Jane Doe No. 4’s deposition. His counsel even attaches the aforementioned stipulation of counsel wherein it was agreed that Jane Doe No. 4’s deposition would only go forward if Epstein would not be seen by the Plaintiff. Yet, Epstein flagrantly violated this agreement by traversing the lobby of the building, just feet away from where the deposition was being held at the precise moment Plaintiff was likely to be arriving at her deposition. 6. Epstein’s version of events is even contradicted by the documents he chose to attach to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions. Epstein describes a fortuitous meeting with Plaintiff Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009

Page 2 of 6 3 at 1:04 p.m. (D.E. 305, Exhibit “4”). This is not only patently absurd, but it is contradicted by Defendant’s own filings. Counsel for the parties went on the record to announce the cancellation of the deposition after the altercation in the lobby. According to the court reporter and even defense counsel, the parties went on the record at 1:03 p.m. See Exhibit “B”. Thus, Mr. Epstein’s version that the lobby incident occurred at 1:04 p.m. (when he thought he would not see Plaintiff) is simply an impossibility.2 7. There is simply no basis for the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff or her counsel. Not only was there no bad faith, willful misconduct, or violation of a court order by Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did precisely what the parties agreed to before the deposition. The parties agreed that she would only appear for deposition if she would not see Epstein. See Exhibit “A”. This condition was unambiguous. Id. It was Epstein – and not the Plaintiff -- who chose to violate this stipulation and the No-Contact Orders.3 8. Jane Doe No. 4 was visibly shaken to the point of tears within seconds of being stared at by Jeffrey Epstein. She began crying uncontrollably and was in no condition for an otherwise emotional and difficult deposition. Sitting for her deposition at that moment was simply not an option. Indeed, the likelihood of emotional distress is precisely the reason that the Accordingly, there is no basis for sanctions against Plaintiff. 2 Moreover, following the incident in the lobby, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to console his visibly distraught client. He then entered the deposition room to confer with all counsel as to what had occurred. It was only after this brief discussion that Plaintiff’s counsel went on the record at 1:03 p.m. to announce the termination of the deposition based on the earlier event. Accordingly, Plaintiff maintains that these incidents in the lobby occurred at approximately 1:00 p.m. 3 Epstein attempts to excuse his behavior by arguing that he works in the office building where the deposition was held. This is irrelevant. It does not vitiate the parties’ stipulation or the No- contact Order. Indeed, Epstein’s familiarity with the ingresses and egresses of the office building make his reckless interaction with Jane Doe No. 4 all the more egregious. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009

Page 3 of 6 4 parties entered into the stipulation involving Epstein being unseen by Jane Doe No. 4 at her deposition. 9. Defendant’s proposal that Plaintiff re-sit for deposition in the next ten (10) days is simply untenable. Plaintiff was wounded by her encounter with Epstein and sought counseling that same evening. Before she re-appears for deposition, parameters must be in place to ensure that Epstein does not appear at the deposition or otherwise violate the No-Contact Order. Epstein is a felon and a registered sex offender. The Court should be reminded that he is a dangerous felon, who is capable, according to numerous young women, of inflicting substantial psychological damage. Dated: September 23, 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 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009

Page 4 of 6 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 23, 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 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009

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 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2009