UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant _____________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ______________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant _______________________________/ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 378 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2009

Page 1 of 8 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 2 JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant _____________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 6. CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant _______________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ________________________________/ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 378 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2009

Page 2 of 8 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 3 CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M.A., Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ______________________________/ JANE DOE, CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, Vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendant. ______________________________/ DOE II, CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendants. _______________________________/ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 378 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2009

Page 3 of 8 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 4 JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ______________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant _______________________________/ PLAINTIFF JANE DOE’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER BARRING SECOND DEPOSITION SCHEDULED IN VIOLATION OF CONSOLIDATION ORDER AND FOR SANCTIONS Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby moves this Court for protective order barring a second deposition of her by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The Consolidation Order [DE 98] in this case clearly allows Epstein to depose her only a single time. Epstein has absolutely no basis for unilaterally setting her for a second deposition. Therefore, the Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 378 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2009

Page 4 of 8 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 5 Court should enter a protective order and should sanction Epstein for forcing Jane Doe to seek such an order. BACKGROUND FACTS 1. On May 14, 2009, this Court entered a consolidation order providing: “Defendant is limited to a single deposition of each Plaintiff, during which Defendant may depose the Plaintiff as both a party and a witness.” [DE 98 at 4]. 2. On September 20, 2009, Epstein took Jane Doe’s videotaped deposition from 9:37 a.m. until 6:10 p.m. (approximately eight hours). 3. On October 20, 2009, Epstein sent notice to Jane Doe’s counsel that he was setting Jane Doe for another videotaped deposition, on November 13, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. No limit on the length of the deposition was indicated. Epstein did not seek leave of Court to set this deposition. ANALYSIS 4. Epstein’s act of setting Jane Doe for a second, videotaped deposition in violation of the Court’s consolidation order is (yet another) act of harassment and abuse by him. The Court’s order could not be clearer, limiting Epstein to a “single deposition of each Plaintiff.” Epstein is willfully flouting that order. 5. The only basis that Epstein’s counsel has indicated for this gross disregard of the Court’s order is that the order also waives the seven-hour limit “so as to allow each party an adequate opportunity to develop fully the record as it may relate to that party.” [DE 98 at 4]. But this waiver of the time limit can hardly provide a basis for Epstein subjecting her to protracted questioning. Instead, this waiver was designed to Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 378 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2009

Page 5 of 8 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 6 insure that each individual plaintiff would have an opportunity to pursue issues as needed in the deposition of a single witness. This waiver can hardly be reasonably thought to provide a basis for subjecting a plaintiff who has been sexually assaulted by the defendant to endure even longer questioning at his hands. The intent of the Court’s waiver provision related to the seven hour time limit was drafted after thoughtfully recognizing that with multiple Plaintiffs and thus multiple attorneys, each party should have an opportunity to question each witness. Epstein has extrapolated an absurd meaning to this waiver in an attempt to harass Plaintiff Jane Doe. 6. Indeed, the matter is so clear-cut that Epstein should be sanctioned for forcing Jane Doe to file a motion for a protective order. Jane Doe’s counsel respectfully requests an award of attorney’s fees for having to file this pleading to enforce the Court’s order. The Court’s consolidation order specifically warns that “[a]ny abuses of this waiver [of the seven-hour limit] shall result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions against the offending party.” [DE 98 at 4-5]. The sanction of an attorneys’ fee award is appropriate here. CONCLUSION For all these reasons, the Court should enforce its consolidation order and bar any further deposition of Jane Doe by Epstein. The Court should also award attorney’s fees to Jane Doe’s counsel for being forced to file this pleading to enforce the Court’s previously-entered order. DATED October 29, 2009 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 378 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2009

Page 6 of 8 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 7 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 29, 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 378 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2009

Page 7 of 8 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 8 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 378 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2009