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 343] TO MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTFF’S INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff Jane Doe, hereby files her reply to defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s response (DE 343 in consolidated case no. 08-CIV-80119) to her motion to compel answers to her interrogatories. 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 two subjects: the names of Epstein’s accountants and Epstein’s property holdings. Interrogatory No. 17: Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009

Page 1 of 6 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 2 Provide the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all your current accountants, financial planners or money managers handling, or assisting in the handling, of your money or assets. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. Constitutional privileges. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is so overbroad and, thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, work- product and attorney-client. Reply to Epstein’s Response: Epstein argues that disclosing information about his accountants is somehow incriminating. The reasons for this claim are obscure, because Epstein relies on sealed submissions (doc. #282 and #293) that Jane Doe has not had the opportunity to review. 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. In any event, it appears far-fetched that answering Jane Doe’s interrogatories about the names of his accountants is incriminating. It is clear that “[d]iscovery requests that seek background information on events and experiences of the witness for which he cannot realistically or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection.” Doc. No. 242 at p. 12. The mere names of financial planners do not disclose anything for which Epstein can be prosecuted. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009

Page 2 of 6 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 3 A good illustration of this conclusion comes from Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976), where the government subpoenaed records that Fisher (a taxpayer) had provided to his accountants. In rejecting Fisher’s Fifth Amendment argument, the Court explained: “[A]ssuming that these aspects of producing the accountant’s papers have some minimal testimonial significance, surely it is not illegal to seek accounting help in connection with one’s tax returns or for the accountant to prepare workpapers and deliver them to the taxpayer.” Id. at 412. The situation here is even one step more removed from any risk of incrimination. Jane Doe is not asking for papers that Epstein delivered to his accountants (as the government obtained in Fisher), but the mere names of accountants. Under Fisher, Jane Doe is entitled to this information. Accordingly, Epstein should be compelled to answer Interrogatory No. 17. Interrogatory No. 5: Describe any real property in which you have a total or partial ownership interest, either directly or indirectly. Interrogatory No. 15: Describe with specificity the amount of money available to you in cash or that can be readily liquidated as such. Include the bank, financial institution, holding company, or other location of this money and the name of the account. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. Constitutional privileges. 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. In addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant objects as the Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009

Page 3 of 6 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 4 interrogatory is so overbroad and, thus, seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Reply to Epstein’s Response: Here again, Epstein’s basis for contending that this information is somehow incriminating is obscure. For example, how is it even possibly incriminating to state something along the lines of “I have $1,000,000 in account number 12345 in the Acme National Bank.” That does not admit a crime or anything remotely connected to a crime. A Fifth Amendment privilege can only be properly asserted with respect to “genuinely threatening questions.” United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). Epstein’s concern appears to be not that he will be prosecuted for having money in a bank, but rather that this fact may prove useful to Jane Doe. But “the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination ‘does not extent to consequences of a noncriminal nature, such as threats of liability in civil suits.’” United States v. Conces, 507 F.3d 1028, 1040 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 125 (1980)). It is Epstein’s burden to “demonstrate a real danger of incrimination if he were to respond to any particular discovery request.” Conces, 507 F.3d at 1040. Epstein has utterly failed to do so. These questions are not genuinely threatening and Epstein should be compelled to answer. CONCLUSION For all these reasons, the Court should compel Epstein to answer the interrogatories Jane Doe has propounded. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009

Page 4 of 6 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 5 DATED October 16, 2009 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 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009

Page 5 of 6 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 6 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 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009