Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ______________ _;/ Related cases: 08-80232, 08-083 80, 08-803 81, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591,09-80656,09-80802,09-81092 ______________ _;/ THIRD PARTY WITNESS, IGOR ZINOVIEW'S, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LA ,v Third Paiiy Witness, Igor Zinoview's, ("Mr. Zinoview") by and through his undersigned attorney, moves this Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) for a protective order regarding his deposition and as grounds therefore would state: 1. As reflected on the affidavit of Igor Zinoview, attached as Exhibit A, he works for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Mr. Epstein") as a driver and bodyguard. He did not know Mr. Epstein before November of 2005. He first became employed by Mr. Epstein in November of 2005. 2. Additionally, Mr. Zinoview would testify as set forth on his affidavit, that at no time has he discussed with Mr. Epstein any issues involving Mr. Epstein's criminal case nor any of the cases or issues involved with civil plaintiffs. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 2 of 26 3. In many of the depositions, counsel for L.M. and E.W., has asked them as witnesses to assume ce1iain facts about which they have no knowledge, and he then asks their opinions about certain facts. See Exhibit B ~Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions. 4. There is no information which Mr. Zinoview has relating to the facts and circumstances surrounding any of the pending civil cases, in that none of their allegations directed to Mr. Epstein extend beyond September of 2005. Therefore whatever information Mr. Zinoview may have, postdates that time. 5. Regarding the scope of discovery, Judge Linnea Johnson noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE #377), "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). . .. Cou1is have long held that ' [ w]hile the standard of relevancy [in discovery] is a liberal one, it is not so liberal as to allow a party to roam in the shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matter (sic) which does not presently appear ge1111ane on the theory that it might conceivably become so.' Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (C.A. D.C. 1997) (string cite omitted)." 6. Rule 26(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that, "[a] party or any person from whomn discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending.... The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: (A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery;". 2 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 3 of 26 7. As set forth in his affidavit, Mr. Zinoview cannot possibly have any knowledge or information that is presently germane to this action. Accordingly, the Court should enter a protective order prohibiting his deposition. WHEREFORE, third~paity witness moves this comt for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that his deposition not take place or the questioning be limited. By: _______ _ JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER ESQ. Florida Bar No. 262013 [email protected] Rule 7.1 Certification I hereby certify that counsel for the movant has conferred or attempted to confer with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery issues prior to the filing of this motion for protective order but has been unable to do so. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also ce1tify that the foregoing document is being served this day on aII counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this_ day of November, 2009 Respectfully submitted, By:-------- JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER ESQ. Florida Bar No. 262013 i [email protected] Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 (Counsel/or Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) • 3 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 4 of 26 Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1650 Suite 2218 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: 954-522-3456 305-931-2200 Fax: 954-527-8663 Fax: 305-931-0877 bedwards@,rra-law.com [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case Wo. ahorO\[email protected] 08-80893 Counsel/or Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80 II 9, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. 2290 10th Avenue North Suite 404 Lake Worth, FL 3 3461 561-582-7600 Fax: 561-588-8819 Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 [email protected] Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 561-686-6300 Fax: 561-383-9424 [email protected] j [email protected] Counsel.for Plaintiff, C.MA. Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhaii, P.A. 250 S. AustraHan Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice' 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected]. utah. ed u Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm) P.A. 224 Datum Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street) Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 ri osefs [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 4 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 5 of 26 561 -202-6360 Fax: 561-828-0983 ~brucereinhartlaw.com Counsel/or Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T, Kuvin, Esq, Leopold, Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd,, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 561-684-6500 Fax: 561-515-2610 sk\,[email protected] Counsel for Plaint(.[( in Related Case No. 08-08804 Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian A venue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 5 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 6 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. _____________ ! Related Cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993,08-80811,08-80893,09-80469, 09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. I ------------ AFFIDAVIT OF IGOR ZINOVIEV STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Igor Z_inoviev having personal lmowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. My name is Igor Zinoview. 2. I began working for Mr. Epstein in November of 2005. 3. I did not know him until I began working for him. 4. I have never discussed nor has he ever attempted to discuss with me any facts or infonnation relating to any legal matters in which he is involved. 5. I work for Mr. Epstein as his driver, bodyguard and trainer. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 7 of 26 Page 2 FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH tlfgor~ I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Igor Zinoviev known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above named person: J:..j01..- 2u"-D\Jl't!W , and that an oath was/was not taken. WITNESS my hand and official seal m the County and State last aforesaid this day of )'\ 0, 1• q , 2009. -PRINlfNAME: _\ _____ (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO.: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: J Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 8 of 26 L.M., Plaintiff, V. IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________ ____;/ EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PROHIBIT INAPPROPRIATE DEPOSITION QUESTIONS Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), pursuant to Rule 1.280(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, moves for a protective order to prohibit argumentative, harassing and inappropriate questions in depositions, and states: 1. At numerous depositions, Plaintiff's counsel has repeatedly asked argumentative and harassing questions that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. In particular, Plc;iintiff's counsel has asked questions that improperly sought to illicit lay opinions from fact witnesses, asked questions regarding witnesses' feelings towards Mr. Epstein and their beliefs regarding media reports of this case, asked whether they would leave their children with Mr. Epstein and asked whether they would go back to work for Mr. Epstein assuming the media reports were accurate, among other things. These questions and the responses thereto will never be admissible. They are argumentative, irrelevant and seek speculative answers and inadmissible lay opinions. EXHIBIT B ----~ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 9 of 26 LM v, Egstein Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMBAB Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions

Page 2 of 9 3. For example, in the deposition of Larry Visoski, one of Mr. Epstein's pilots, Plaintiff's counsel asked the following questions seeking to obtain Mr. Visoski's beliefs and opinions on Plaintiff's allegations: Q. All right. When you read in the newspapers the allegations that Mr. Epstein was involved with numerous underage girls for sexual reasons, were you surprised? A. I didn't believe it. Q. Do you believe it today? A. I don't believe it. Q. You don't believe that Jeffrey Epstein was involved with underage girls in a sexual way? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: You're asking for my opinion, and I don't think my opinion is relevant in that matter. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. I think it's relevant. Can you just tell me whether today you believe that Jeffrey Epstein has engag.ed in sex with underage girls? • • • MR. CRITTON: Form; speculation, irrelevant, always. THE WITNESS: It's irrelevant. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. I need an answer. A. I don't believe he had sex with underage women. Q. Or engaged in any· sexual acts with underage women? MR. CRITTON: Form. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 10 of 26 LM v. Epstein Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMBAB Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions

Page 3 of 9 THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. You think that this ls just a story that a bunch of underage women have made up? A. Speculatlon. * * * * Q. Then we'll handle the question this way: If you were to believe based on information and evidence that Mr. Epstein engaged in sex or some form of sex acts with people of the age range of 12, 13, 14, 15 years old, would you continue your employment with Mr. Epstein? MR. CRITTON: Form; speculation. THE WITNESS: I would certainly be speculating and I have to discuss it with my wife long and hard. I don't think I could give you a correct and honest answer at this time. See Excerpts of Deposition of Larry Visokski at 66-67; 181-82 (attached as composite Exhibit A). Other examples of similar improper questions are included in Exhibit A. 4. Not only do these questions seek improper lay opinions, Plaintiff's counsel asked Mr. Visoski his belief as to the truth of hearsay newspaper articles. The foregoing questions are obviously irrelevant, argumentative and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5. Moreover, whether Mr. Visoski would continue working for Mr. Epstein if Plaintiff's allegations are true has absolutely no relevance to any claim or defense in this case. The questions are simply improper and meant to harass and embarrass the Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 11 of 26 LM v. Epstein Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMBAB Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions

Page 4 of 9 witness. 6. Mr. Visoski was questioned for over four hou'.s and much of the time was wasted on irrelevant and harassing questions. 7. Plaintiff's counsel asked similar questions at the deposition of Larry Eugene Morrison, another one of Mr. Epstein's pilots: Q. Certainly you've read certain newspaper articles about the allegations, police reports, otherwise, the allegations that occurred or have been alleged to have occurred at his Palm Beach mansion, correct? A. Uh-huh. Q. Correct? A. Correct. Q. Given the nature of those allegations, would you leave your daughter of 17, 16, 15 years old with Mr. Epstein alone? MR PIKE: Form. Move to strike. A. Yes. * * * * Q. And despite pleading guilty to procuring underage girls for the purposes of sex, you still feel comfortable leaving a 13, 14, 15-year-old girl around him? MR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike. A. Yes. I mean, with my daughter, yes. I don't know how he behaves around anybody else. I just know that the respect that he showed me, I feel safe with my daughter. Q. And have you read in detail the reports as to what happened at his house with the girls? Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 12 of 26 LM V. Epstein Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMBAB Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions

Page 5 of 9 A. Only -- MR. PIKE: Form. A. -- what's been in the newspapers and published. Q. If you read and hear testimony given - well, I can tell you now - testimony has been given in this case that what happens is: A 13 or 14 year old is led upstairs by herself, told to get naked, he lays down on his back, there is a brief massage before he turns over, exposes himself erect, masturbates while he tells this 13 or 14 year old to pinch his nipples as hard as she can while he inserts his fingers into their vagina and ejaculates all over them before saying, "Take your money and leave." MR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. Okay? Then, 11You can continue to come back for $200 every time or every girl you bring me within your age group and I get to do this again, I pay you $200 per person." If that is the testimony -- MR. PIKE: Form. Q. -- that what happens behind closed doors with him, do you still feel comfortable leaving a 13 or 14 year old in a room with Jeffrey Epstein? MR. PIKE: Form. A. If that, in fact, is what actually happened, no. * * * * Q. [Would you] go back - considering what you've read and what you may or may not believe - would you go back to working for Jeffrey Epstein? MR. PIKE: Form. A. I can't say. I still work for him on a maintenance - to Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 13 of 26 LM v. Epstein Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMBAB Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions Page 6 of9 maintain the airplanes and stuff like that, so. §ee Excerpts of Deposition of Larry Eugene Morrison at 135-36; 175-76; 184 (attached as composite Exhibit B). 8. Again, whether Mr. Morrison would work for Mr. Epstein "considering what [he has] read and what [he] may or may not believe" (i.e. considering hearsay media accounts and inadmissible lay opinion) has no bearing on the instant case. 9. ln addition, questions regarding whether Mr. Morrison would leave his children alone with Mr. Epstein could have only been meant to harass and embarrass Mr. Morrison. Nevertheless, Mr. Morrison testified that he would leave his children with Mr. Epstein. As Plaintiffs counsel was obviously not happy with the answer to this question, he proceeded to press Mr. Morrison with inflammatory statements until he got the answer he wanted. 10. Plaintiff's counsel has also asked the same improper line of questions in other witnesses' depositions. 11. The above-cited questions exceed the bounds of permissible discovery; they have absolutely no relevance to this case. Accordingly, the Court should enter a protective order prohibiting such questions and should sanction Plaintiff's counsel if such inappropriate questions are asked at future depositions. 12. Regarding the scope of discovery, Judge Linnea Johnson noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order, 1 "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, lt is not 1 The Omnibus Order (DE #377) was entered in the federal companion case Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV-80119 MARRNJOH NSON in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 14 of 26 LM v. Epstein Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMBAB Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions

Page 7 of 9 without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). ... Courts have long held that '[w]hile the standard of relevancy [in discovery] is a liberal one, it is not so liberal as to allow a party to roam in the shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matter (sic) which does not presently appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so.' Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (C.A. D.C. 1997) (string .cite omitted)." §ee also Capco Properties, LLC v. Monterry Gardens of Pinecrest Condo., 982 So. 2d 1211, (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that discovery in civil cases must be relevant to the subject matter of the case and must be admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence); Morton Plant Hospital Ass'n, lnc. v. Shahbas, 960 So. 2d 820, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that ''discovery should be denied when it has been established that the information requested is neither relevant F to any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," citing Tanchel v. Shoemaker, 928 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)). 13. As illustrated above, the questions are simply not germane to any pending '--.. claim or defense nor will they lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Whether Mr. Visoski believes or disbelieves the media accounts of this case, or whether Mr. Morrison would leave his children with Mr. Epstein is not relevant and cannot conceivably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 14. The Court should curtail these inappropriate lines of questions and enter a protective order prohibiting them. 15. Rule 1.280(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides the Court with Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 15 of 26 LM v. Epstein Case No, 502008CA028051 XXXXMBAB Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions

Page 8 of 9 the power to "make any order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense that justice requires including ... (4) that certain matter not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters." 16. Accordingly, Epstein requests the Court enter a protective order prohibiting Plaintiff's counsel from asking witnesses' questions regarding opinions and beliefs regarding media articles and the allegations in this case and whether they would leave their children with Epstein or questions of a similar nature, and limiting the scope to the witnesses personal knowledge regarding matters relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. See Shahbas, 960 So. 2d at 824. WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests the Court enter a protective order prohibiting Plaintiffs counsel from asking witnesses' questions regarding opinions and beliefs regarding media articles and the allegations in this case and whether they would leave their children with Epstein or questions of a similar nature, and limiting the scope to the witnesses personal knowledge regarding matters relevant to the claims and defenses in this case and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees on this 3rd day of November, 2009: Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 16 of 26 .LM v. Epstein Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMBAB Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit lnapproprlale Deposition Questions

Page 9 of 9 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-522-3456 Phone 954-527 -8663 Fax Counsel for Plaintiff Jay Howell, Esq. Jay Howell & Associates, P.A. 644 Cesery Boulevard Suite 250 Jacksonville, FL 32211 904-680-1234 Phone 904-680-1238 Fax Co-counsel for Plaintiff West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Fax: 561-835-8691 ~ Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Be , FL 33401 (561) 842- (561) 84 By: __;,,_,___,~:1---___:...p_ .. '1-:-q_}-__ R e . Critton, Jr. ~( F orida Bar #224162 Michael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 17 of 26 Larry Visoski l 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 zq 25 IN Tile ClRCUlT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO, S02008CA028051XXY.XM1l AD L,H., Pltlintiff, -vs- Jllf'FREY EPSTEIH, De fend.int. DEPOSl TION Of LARRY VISOSKI Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:18 - 3:37 p.m. 515 U. Fla9let Drive Suite ?200 West: Pall\\ Beach, Florida J340l Reported By: We:ndy Beath Anderson, RPR 1 CRR, FPR Notary P\lblic, State of Florida ~squire Deposition Sc1·vices West Po.l1n Bench Of(ice Job ~127542 2 APPEARANCES: On behalf of the Plaintiff: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQUIRE ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT, ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1660 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 On behalf of the Defendant: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE BURMAN, CRITTON & LUTTIER 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 On behalf of the Witness: BRUCE REINHART, ESQUIRE 250 South Australlan Avenue Suile 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 ALSO PRESENT: CARA L. HOLMES, ESQUIRE 1220 N.W. 157th Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33026 ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQUIRE MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. 1 B205 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQUIRE (VIA TELEPHONE) RICHARD H. WILLITS, P.A. 2290 10\h Avenue North, Suite 404 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 1 2 3 4 INDEX October 15, 2009 3 5 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 6 LARRY VISOSKI BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 8 BY MR. CRITTON: 214 BY MR. EDWARDS: 220 9 BY MR. CRITTON: 221 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2/J 25 EXHIBITS NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE PLAINTIFF'S EX. 1 FLIGHT I.OG BOOK (MARKED IN PREVIOUS DEPO) PLAINTIFF'S EX. 2 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 3 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 4 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 5 MESSAGE PAD 119 MESSAGE PAD 119 COMPLAINT 139 INMATE VISITOR LOG 161 4 PROCEEDINGS . -- Deposition taken before. Wendy Beath Anderson, Certified Rea!tirne Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, In the above cause. . - . MR. EDWARDS: We're going to put something on the record about·- well, we'll do It this way - MR. REINHART: Do it at the end, after we get him - whatever you want. It's your show. MR. EDWARDS: Okay. There were --1 don't even think Mr. Willits is aware of this. There was a subpoena duces tecum for this witness, as well as the previous witness, which was another pilot, Dave Rogers, and that duces teoum was to bring the flight logs related from 1998 through 2005. What was produced at the previous deposition were flight logs from 2002 through 2005, ancl now Mr. Reinhart has agreed to produce the remainder of the flight logs requested, those going from 1998 t11rough 2002. MR. REINHART; Correct. They're pilot logs, not night logs. There are other records we indicated are corporate records, and with those you have to deal with Mr. Critton. MR. CRITTON: However, with the proviso, too, Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009

Page 18 of 26 I I I I I I I i i October 15, 2009 67 women? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. EDWARDS; p Q. You think that this Is Just a story tl1at a 6 bunch of underage women have made up? 01 A. Speculation. ,8 MR. CRITTON: Objection. Now it's 66 9 ,o p ~2 Q3 i14 ·15 '16 17 18 19'. 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 Q. All right. When you read in the newspapers 1 2 the allegations that Mr. Epstein was involved with 2 3 numerous underage girls for sexual reasons, were you 3 4 surprised? 4 5 A. I didn't believe it, 5 6 Q. Do you believe it today? 6 7 A. I don't believe it. 7 8 Q, You don't believe that Jeffrey Epstein was B 9 involved with underage girls in a sexual way? 9 10 MR. CRITTON: Form. 10 11 THE WITNESS: You're asking for my opinion, 11 12 and I don't think my opinion·ls relevant in that 12 13 matter. 13 14 BY MR. EDWARDS: 14 15 Q, I think it's relevant. Can you just tell rne 15 l 6 whether today you believe that Jeffrey Epstein has 16 l 7 engaged in sex with underage girls? 1 7 18 MR. CRITTON: Form; speculation, Irrelevant, 18 J. 9 always. 19 20 THE WITNESS: It's irrelevant. 20 21 BY MR. EDWARDS: 21 22 Q. I need an answer. 22 23 A. I don't believe he had sex with underage 23 24 women. 24 25 Q. Or engaged in any sexual acts with underage 25 argumentative. Who gives a darn what he thinks one way or another? If he has personal l<nowledge - MR. EDWARDS: You're objecting to the form? MR. CRITTON: It's argumentative. MR. EDWARDS: You're objecting to the form? MR. CRITTON: Yes. MR. EDWARDS: Okay. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q, Is that something that you believe that a b1.1nch of women -- some of which know each other, some don't, some of which have been on the airplane and some which haven'! - made this up, that Jeffrey Epstein engaged In some sexual conduct with them? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: What I believe doesn't matter in this case, does it? 68 BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. I need an answer. Do you believe it? Do you believe these girls made this up? MR. CRITTON: Form. MR. REINHART: I'm going to instruct him not to answer. Move on. MR. EDWARDS: Is there a privilege that we're asserting? MR. REINHART: No, It's irrelevant. It's harassment and not likely to lead to discoverable evidence. 'MR. EDWARDS: I'm going·to--put on the record right now that it is -- we are allowed discovery into a RICO count. We are also allowed discovery into the intent of Mr. Epstein In developing a criminal enterprise designed to sexually exploit and sexually abuse underage girls. We believe that in doing so, he associated intentionally with people of similar beliefs that sex with underage girls is okay, and that there have been rnany discussions with this witness, as well as many other witnesses with -- to Ins lire his protection from law enforcement that they not answer these specific questions. And thus, the opinions and beliefs of all of these witnesses that we are Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2009