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 SECOND MOTION FOR Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Second Motion for Protective Order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and states as follows: PROTECTIVE ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW 1. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”) has scheduled the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 for October 27, 2009 at 11 p.m. 2. Jane Doe No. 4 does not oppose the taking of her deposition, but instead objects to her deposition taking place without adequate precautions to ensure that Jeffrey Epstein does not repeat the offensive conduct he engaged in on September 16, 2009 when Jane Doe No. 4 first appeared for her deposition. (D.E. 306). 3. Jeffrey Epstein crossed paths with Jane Doe No. 4 and terrorized her immediately before her last scheduled deposition on September 16, 2009, despite a prior written stipulation between the parties that Epstein would not attend the depositions, nor be seen by the Plaintiffs, including Jane Doe No. 4, at their depositions. (D.E. 306, Ex. 3). Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 364 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009

Page 1 of 7 2 4. Jane Doe No. 4 now seeks an Order in advance of the deposition directing that Jeffrey Epstein not attend the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 or make himself seen by Jane Doe No. 4 at her deposition, or else automatic sanctions will be entered against Epstein. Epstein has refused such an order. 5. Prior to the last scheduled deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 on September 16, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective Order to preclude Jeffrey Epstein from attending the depositions of the Plaintiffs. (D.E. 292). The Motion was filed for the specific purpose of preventing Epstein from intimidating or harassing the Plaintiffs as he has repeatedly done in the past. (D.E. 292). 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.” (D.E. 306). It was further stipulated under no circumstances was Epstein to be seen by Jane Doe No. 4 at her deposition. (D.E. 306). These were express conditions agreed to by Epstein’s counsel before Jane Doe No. 4 appeared for deposition on September 16, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. (D.E. 306). 6. At approximately 1:00 p.m. on September 16, 2009, Jane Doe No. 4 and her counsel were walking in the lobby of 250 Australian Ave South, Suite 115, West Palm Beach, Florida, toward the ground-floor conference room where her deposition was to be held. Just a few feet away from this conference room, Epstein crossed paths with Jane Doe No. 4. 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 the Plaintiff. Instead, he stopped and continued to stare at her until she ran away. Jane Doe No. 4 became an emotional wreck upon this encounter. As a result of her distress, Jane Doe No. 4 did not sit for deposition and left the Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 364 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009

Page 2 of 7 3 building, but only after her counsel assured her that Epstein was not waiting for her in the parking ramp. (D.E. 306). 7. In addition to violating the Stipulation between the parties, Jeffrey Epstein’s contact with and intimidation of Jane Doe No. 4 is a clear 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). The July 31, 2009 Order mirrored the June 30, 2008 criminal court order entered by Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillio, wherein she ordered Epstein to have “no direct or indirect contact” with the Plaintiffs. (D.E. 238). 8. The Motions for Protective Order and Motion for Sanctions that resulted from Jeffrey Epstein’s reckless conduct remain pending before this Court. (D.E. 306). In the Motion for Protective Order, Plaintiff requested an Order preventing Jeffrey Epstein from attending in person the depositions of all Plaintiffs, directing that any depositions of Plaintiffs in the future be at a court reporter’s office selected by Plaintiffs’ counsel, and that a special master be appointed to preside at Plaintiffs’ depositions and control the proceedings, at Epstein’s expense. (D.E. 306). 9. Although these motions remain pending, Epstein has insisted on scheduling the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 for October 27, 2009. Plaintiffs’ counsel advised Defendant’s counsel that since the motions for protective order were still pending, counsel would only produce Jane Doe No. 4 and other Plaintiffs for deposition upon an agreed order directing that (1) Epstein not attend the depositions of the Plaintiffs; (2) a sanction be entered against Epstein if he does attend any deposition of a Plaintiff which provides that Epstein may not take that Plaintiff’s deposition, and (3) the depositions will be held in a neutral location, which does not include Epstein’s office building. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 364 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009

Page 3 of 7 4 10. Epstein refuses to allow the deposition to take place anywhere other than in his office building. Attorneys for Jane Doe No. 4 suggested using a court reporter’s office in the same building where Epstein’s defense counsel is located. He refused. Yet Epstein has not shown why he is prejudiced by holding the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 in any West Palm Beach location other than his very own office building. If anything, Jane Doe No. 4 will be traumatized by being forced to go to the same location where she was already re-victimized by Epstein. 11. Epstein also refused to agree to a self-executing sanction in the event he again appears at Jane Doe No. 4’s deposition, despite the fact that it is entirely within his control whether to make himself seen by the plaintiff at her deposition. Thus, Epstein should have little to worry about unless he plans to terrorize Jane Doe No. 4 before her deposition again. Without a self-executing sanction, the parties are in the same place they were before the September 16, 2009 deposition of Jane Doe No. 4: in agreement on a stipulation that Epstein clearly deems worthless. As has been well-documented, Epstein flagrantly violated that stipulation. Given Jeffrey Epstein’s status as a felon and registered sex offender, as well as his prior violations of two No-Contact Orders and the written stipulation of the parties, a protective order with self- executing sanctions is absolutely necessary in advance of the scheduled deposition to ensure Epstein does not repeat his reckless and abusive behavior. His blatant refusal to let the deposition take place anywhere other than in his office building makes it even more apparent that he has every intention of terrorizing Jane Doe No. 4 yet again.1 1 Under his community control conditions, Epstein is only allowed to leave his home to go to his office building. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 364 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009

Page 4 of 7 5 12. Finally, Epstein has scheduled the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 to start at 11 p.m. This is wholly unacceptable. Nevertheless, Epstein refused to change the starting time even when specifically requested by Plaintiff’s counsel. On October 14, 2009, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to defendant’s counsel that stated, “Not only is the location not agreeable, but neither is the 11 pm start time.” See Exhibit “A”. In response, Epstein’s counsel wrote the following terse response: “So file a prot order I tried to work this out and your response was unacceptable, bob”. Id. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4, respectfully requests that her deposition be set for a mutually agreeable time, date and location with the aforementioned precautions in place before the deposition. No explanation was offered as why an 11 p.m. starting time was necessary or appropriate. 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: October 21, 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 364 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009

Page 5 of 7 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 21 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 364 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009

Page 6 of 7 7 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 364 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2009