Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 403 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009

Page 1 of 9 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, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993,08-80811,08-80893,09-80469, 09-80591,09-80656,09-80802,09-81092 ______________ __:! EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE'S MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BARRING SECOND DEPOSITION AND INCORPORATED MOTION TO STRIKE Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), submits this Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs, Jane Doe, Motion for Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition ("Motion") (DE# 378) and incorporated Motion to Strike Jane Doe's Motion, and states: Response in Opposition to Jane Doe's Motion I. Jane Doe's Motion (DE #378) seeks a protective order barring the completion of her deposition, which is set for November 13, 2009 .1 2. On September 20, 2009, Epstein began Jane Doe's deposition. While Jane Doe states her deposition lasted approximately eight hours (from 9:37 a.m. to 6:10 p.m.), she fails to 1 While Jane Doe's deposition is set for this Friday, November 13, 2009, it will likely be re-set to the week of November 16, 2009 as her compulsory medical exam was rescheduled to November 13, 2009. Jane Doe is represented by the law firm Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler ("RRA"), which as been in the news regarding alleged illegal and unethical conduct regarding investments in settlements/cases. Brad Edwards, Esq. of RRA asked to reschedule the pending compulsory medical exams of his three clients, Jane Doe and two state court Plaintiffs, LM and EW, which were originally set for November 9, IO and 11, respectively. Epstein's counsel agreed to reset the exams. Jane Doe's compulsory medical exam is now scheduled for November 13, 2009. Nevertheless, as Jane Doe's deposition will most likely occur during the week of November 16, 2009, Epstein submits this Motion to avoid further delay and since the parties are under specific discovery deadlines and the Court previously denied Epstein's Motion for Continuance (DE #187). Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 403 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009

Page 2 of 9 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No.08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe's Motion for Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition and Incorporated Motion to Strike Page 2 of9 take into account lunch and other breaks. When taking into account the various breaks, Jane Doe was actually deposed for 6 hours and 52 minutes.2 3. Per the Court's May 14, 2009 Order Consolidating Cases for Purposes of Discovery (DE# 98), "Local Rule 26.1 K (limiting deposition time to one day of seven hours) is waived so as to allow each party an adequate opportunity to develop fully the record as it may relate to that party." 4. Jane Doe is seeking in excess of $50,000,000 in damages in this case, primarily to "hurt Jeffrey Epstein." See 9/20/09 Deposition Transcript of Jane Doe ("JD Depo") at 421. Yet Jane Doe admitted that Epstein never threatened her, never used physical force, never restrained her and never provided her with drugs or alcohol. See JD Depo at 322. Moreover, Jane Doe did not give or receive oral sex from Mr. Epstein, did not engage in anal or vaginal sex with Mr. Epstein. See JD Depo at 312-13. 5. When counsel for Epstein adjourned Jane Doe's deposition, he attempted to coordinate the completion of her deposition, which he estimated would take approximately three hours. But Jane Doe's counsel opposed additional time and took the position that the Court's Order (DE #98) only waived the seven-hour time limit in instances where multiple Plaintiffs' attorneys are questioning the witness. See Excerpts of JD Depo at 426-429, attached as Exhibit A. 6. In adjourning Jane Doe's deposition, counsel for Epstein noted that he intended to cover the following topics in the completion of Jane Doe's deposition, which he estimated would take approximately two and a half to three hours: a. Background information not disclosed in answers to interrogatories and family background information. See Exhibit A at 427; 2 Counsel for Epstein confirmed the actual time with the court reporter. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 403 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009

Page 3 of 9 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80119-MARRNJOHNSON Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe's Motion for Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition and Incorporated Motion to Strike Page 3 of9 b. The details of each time Jane Doe went to Mr. Epstein's house, which was not addressed at her September 20, 2009 deposition. Counsel for Mr. Epstein only had time to question Jane Doe generally about her visits to Mr. Epstein's house. Id. at 426-27, c. The various counts of the complaint, separate and apart from the allegations of the various visits. Mt d. Jane Doe's knowledge of other witnesses/Plaintiffs, including LM and EW, also clients of Brad Edwards, Esq. Id. at 427; and e. School records and medical records, including Milton School, Planned Parenthood, St. Mary's Medical Center, Wellington Regional Hospital, and Pace Center for Girls. Mt 7. Epstein is also entitled to depose Jane Doe regarding her past sexual history, an opportunity he did not have when he began her deposition since the Court had not ruled on Epstein's Motion to Compel (DE #s 67 & 68), which sought information related to Plaintiffs' past sexual history. Jane Doe's counsel instructed her not to answer any questions "relate[ed] to sexual partners' names or sexual positions". See Exhibit A at 162- 170. 8. However, on October 29, 2009, the Court granted Epstein's Motions to Compel (DE #s 67 & 68) related to Plaintiffs' past sexual history. In its Order (DE #377), the Court poignantly acknowledged, "[ u ]nder the circumstances of this case, where Plaintiff has alleged that Epstein ... 'sexually assault her' ... Plaintiff has put the nature of her claimed injuries and source and extent of her damages at issue, such that Epstein is entitled to discover evidence which would show the nature of Plaintiffs relationship with males, whether she has suffered other acts of sexual misconduct as alleged in her Complaint, and whether she suffered injury Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 403 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009

Page 4 of 9 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No.08-CJV-80119-MARRNJOHNSON Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe's Motion for Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition and Incorporated Motion to Strike Page 4 of9 and/or damages as a result of the other claimed sexual misconduct with males." See DE #377 at 9. 9. The Court went on, "the requests at issue go to the very heart of Plaintiff's damage claims, requesting not only general information relating to Plaintiff's sexual history, but inquiring as to specific instances wherein Plaintiff received compensation or consideration for sex acts, claim other males sexually assaulted ... her, and/or claim other males committed lewd or lascivious acts on her. As a global matter, Plaintiffs clearly and unequivocally place their sexual history at issue by their allegations.... To deny Epstein this discovery, would be tantamount to barring him from mounting a defense." See DE #377 at 10 (emphasis added). I 0. Moreover, there are a myriad of relevant issues that cannot not be adequately covered in seven hours, such as Jane Doe's drug use (see JD Depo at 83-85), her employment at strip clubs (id. at 272; 304), numerous incidents of violence and drug use in her home (id. at 191- 94; 232; 361-63), running away from home (id. at 188-90; 232, the murder of Joey Torres by her father, her witnessing her father physically abuse Joey prior to his death and the psychological effect it had on Jane Doe, including post-traumatic stress disorder, which she is also claiming in this case (id. at 150; 193-94; 232; 361-63). 11. Jane Doe is also a witness to other related cases and testified she was friends with LM and EW, Plaintiffs in companion state court cases. See JD Depo at 26. 12. Next, Jane Doe improperly refused to answer questions regarding her address, other persons living with her and the identity of her landlord. See JD Depo at 77-79; 265-66; 302. Her attorney plainly said "[g]o to the Court to get [the] information." Id. at 79. She also admitted to lying under oath in a deposition as well as a court proceeding (id. at 182-83) and testified that the father of her child was a cocaine dealer (id. at 299). Based on Jane Doe's Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 403 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009

Page 5 of 9 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No.08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe's Motion for Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition and Incorporated Motion to Strike Page 5 of9 eventful past history and the multitude of relevant issues, deposing her for an additional three hours is clearly warranted under the circumstances. 13. Indeed, in its Order denying Plaintiffs, C.M.A., Motion for Protective Order (DE #289) requesting the Court limit her independent psychological/psychiatric medical examination to six hours and to prohibit repeated questions regarding Plaintiffs medical history, psychiatric history, sexual history, social history, sexual abuse history and substance abuse history, the Court noted that Plaintiff is seeking millions of dollars in personal injury damages and that "full knowledge of Plaintiffs past and present medical, psychological, familial and social histories is essential." See DE# 289 at 4. The Court therefore allowed eight hours, the full amount of time requested by Epstein's expert, to conduct the examination. Moreover, with respect to Plaintiffs motion to limited repeated questions, "the Court agree[ d] with Defendant that to restrict the number of times defense counsel may ask Plaintiff personal and sensitive questions concerning some of the pivotal issues in this case would work an injustice by preventing Defendant from being able to defend himself." See DE# 289 at 5. 14. Epstein simply requests an additional three hours to complete Jane Doe's deposition. Given that Jane Doe's counsel instructed her not to answer crucial questions related to her past sexual history, and considering the Court recently ruled this information is not only discoverable, but goes to the heart of Plaintiffs damages, Epstein should be permitted three hours to finish Jane Doe's deposition. 15. Although the Court waived the seven hour time limit in S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1 K (also found in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)), Osborne v. Columbia Helicopters, Inc., 2009 WL 2215076 (S.D.W.Va. 2009) is illustrative and supports Epstein's request for additional time to depose Plaintiffs. In Osborne, a personal injury case, the defendant requested additional time to depose Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 403 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009

Page 6 of 9 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No. 08-CJV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe's Motion/or Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition and Incorporated Motion to Strike Page 6 of9 the plaintiff because the plaintiff testified to prior injuries, employers, medical providers and witnesses which were not included in his written discovery responses. Id. *2. In granting the defendant an additional 1 day of 7 hours to depose the plaintiff, the court reasoned that because the plaintiff provided incomplete written discovery responses, the defendant "did not have a full opportunity to examine Mr. Osborne respecting all of the information which might properly be considered in his discovery deposition." Id. *5 (emphasis added). 16. Just like the defendant in Osborne, Epstein has not had a full opportunity to examine Jane Doe as to all information which might properly be considered in her deposition such as information not disclosed in her interrogatories and since she refused to answers questions, both in her deposition and in response to written discovery, regarding her past sexual history. 17. Per the Court's Order (DE #377), Epstein is entitled to discover information regarding Jane Doe's past sexual history. If the Court were to grant Jane Doe's Motion, it would essentially be punishing Epstein for timely proceeding with discovery while his Motions to Compel (DE #s 67 & 68) related to past sexual history were still pending, which Epstein was required to do because the Court denied an earlier motion for continuance (DE # I 87) and said in essence, do your discovery. Granting Jane Doe's Motion would also allow her to circumvent the Court's Order (DE #377) by denying Epstein the opportunity to obtain discovery that is central to the defense of this and other cases. 18. Accordingly, the Court should deny Jane Doe's Motion (DE #378) and permit Epstein an additional three hours to complete Jane Doe's deposition. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 403 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009

Page 7 of 9 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe's Motion/or Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition and Incorporated Motion to Strike Page 7 of9 Motion to Strike Jane Doe's Motion 19. As a threshold matter, the Court should strike Jane Doe's Motion for failure to comply with the Court's August 11, 2009 Order (DE# 263). Specifically, the Order provides, "(h]ereinafter, all motions and other court filings that relate to discovery ... shall be styled consistent with the styling of this Order.... Any motions styled incorrectly or filed in multiple cases will be stricken from the docket for failure to follow the Court's Order." See DE# 263. 20. Jane Doe's Motion (DE # 378), which is a motion for protective order and therefore "relate[ d] to discovery," is clearly styled incorrectly and is not consistent with the styling of the Court's August 11, 2009 Order (DE #263). Accordingly, the Court should strike Jane Doe's Motion. WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests the Court strike Jane Doe's Motion (DE #378) for failure to comply with the Court's August 11, 2009 Order (DE #263) or, alternatively, deny Jane Doe's Motion (DE #378) and permit an additional three hours for the completion of Jane Doe's deposition and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper. By £; j ROBERT .p. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bru- No. 224162 [email protected] Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 403 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009

Page 8 of 9 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80119-MARRNJOHNSON Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe's Motion for Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition and Incorporated Motion to Strike Page 8 of9 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 certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 12th day of November, 2009 By:---+------- ROBERT . CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida B No. 224162 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/253-0164 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. I 8205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 3 3160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 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 33461 561-582-7600 Fax: 561-588-8819 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 40 I East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-522-3456 Fax: 954-527-8663 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. ProHac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room IOI Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 403 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009