UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, Vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendant. _________________________________/ Related Cases: 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 __________________________________/ PLAINTIFF JANE DOE’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE [DE 342] TO MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby files her reply to defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s response (DE 342 in consolidated case no. 08-CIV-80119) to her motion to compel answers to her first request for admissions. Epstein should be compelled to provide the requested information because it is not properly subject to a Fifth Amendment invocation as explained in Jane Doe’s opening submission. Jane Doe will stand on her opening submission, but briefly replies to Epstein’s response with regard to one subject: Epstein’s current net worth. Requests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 23 1. Your net worth is greater than $10 million. 2. Your net worth is greater than $50 million. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 355 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009

Page 1 of 5 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 2 3. Your net worth is greater than $100 million. 4. Your net worth is greater than $500 million. 5. Your net worth is greater than $1 billion. 23. You currently have the ability to post a bond of $15 million to satisfy a judgment in this case without financial or other difficulty. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk waiving my Fifth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the Untied States Constitution and losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Reply to Epstein’s Response: Epstein argues that disclosing information about his current financial status is somehow incriminating. The reasons for this claim are obscure, because Epstein relies on sealed submissions (DE 282 and DE 293) that Jane Doe has not had the opportunity to review. Of course, because these documents are sealed, Jane Doe has no way of determining one way or other whether Epstein’s assertions are true. Jane Doe therefore respectfully asks the Court to make its determination of the issue, mindful of the fact that it is proceeding without the benefit of an adversarial presentation from Jane Doe. If the Court concludes that the materials in DE 282 and DE 283 do demonstrate that Epstein would incriminate himself by discussing his current net worth, then the Court should consider the information in deciding whether to grant Jane Doe’s motion for Preliminary Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of Assets [DE 165], for Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 355 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009

Page 2 of 5 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 3 reasons that Jane Doe explains in her concurrently-filed Notice that Additional Evidence of Epstein’s Fraudulent Asset Transfers Will Be Filed shortly and Motion for Consideration by the Court of Materials in DE 282 and DE 283 in Determining Motion for Appointment of a Receiver. In any event, it appears far-fetched that answering Jane Doe’s requests for admissions about net worth would be incriminating. The above-listed questions ask for a current “snapshot” of Epstein’s current net wealth. They do not ask for how Epstein obtained that net wealth, what sorts of asset transfers underlie that net wealth, or any other questions that could even conceivably provide a basis for criminal prosecution. For example, if Epstein admits that he has a net worth of more than $1 billion, that does not provide a link to any crime. It is not a crime in the United States to have immense wealth. Similarly, if Epstein were to admit that he could easily post a $15 million bond to secure any judgment in this case, that admission would not be relevant to any possible criminal prosecution. Accordingly, Epstein should be compelled to answer these requests for admission about his current net worth, as well as all of the other requests Jane Doe has propounded. CONCLUSION For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the requests for admission Jane Doe has propounded. DATED October 16, 2009 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 355 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009

Page 3 of 5 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 4 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 522-3456 Facsimile (954) 527-8663 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: [email protected] and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: [email protected] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 16, 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 on 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 filed Notices of Electronic Filing. s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 355 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009

Page 4 of 5 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 5 SERVICE LIST Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Isidro Manual 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] Adam D. Horowitz [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein [email protected] William J. Berger [email protected] Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 355 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009