Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 404 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009

Page 1 of 8 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, 08-8081 I, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 _______________ / EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE NO. 4'8 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST SECOND DAY OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF EXTENDING PAST SEVEN HOURS IN THE AGGREGATE Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), submits this Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs, Jane Doe No. 4, Motion for Protective Order Against Second Day of Deposition of Plaintiff Extending Past Seven Hours in the Aggregate ("Motion"), and states: 1. Jane Doe No. 4 filed her Motion (DE #392) on November 3, 2009 seeking to limit her deposition to a total of seven hours. The completion of Jane Doe No. 4's deposition is currently set for November 17, 2009. Thus, this response is being filed to avoid further delay in discovery. 2. On October 27, 2009, Jane Doe No. 4 was deposed for approximately five hours and thirty five minutes. 3. In her Motion, Jane Doe No. 4 joins in Jane Doe's Motion for Protective Order Barring Second Day of Deposition (DE #378), but asserts that she is "willing to sit for a second Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 404 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009

Page 2 of 8 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No.08-CIV-80119-MARRNJOHNSON Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe No. 4 's Motion for Protective Order Against Second Day of Deposition of Plaintiff Extending Past Seven Hours in the Aggregate Page 2 of8 day of deposition for a period of no longer than one honr and twenty five minutes." See DE #392112. 4. Under Local Rule 26.1 Kand Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d), Epstein would be entitled to an additional one hour and twenty-five minutes as a matter of right. So despite her attempt to appear reasonable and accommodating, Jane Doe No. 4 is not doing anyone any favors by agreeing to sit for another honr and twenty-five minutes. 5. 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." 6. For the reasons set forth herein, Epstein requests an additional fonr hours to complete Jane Doe No. 4's deposition, which is patently fair and reasonable. Counsel for Epstein relayed this request to Jane Doe No. 4's counsel, but he was unwilling to agree to the additional four hours. See I 0/29/09 E-mail attached as Exhibit A. 7. Jane Doe No. 4 is seeking in excess of a million dollars in damages for purported emotional and psychological injnries sustained as a result of her encounters with Mr. Epstein. 8. There are a myriad of issues to cover with Jane Doe No. 4 relevant to Epstein's defense of this case. As with many of the Plaintiffs, Jane Doe No. 4 has had a complicated and eventful past history including, but not limited to: (I) drug use which includes cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy and xanax (see 10/27 /09 Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 at 215-17); (2) repeated instances of domestic violence and physical and verbal abuse by her former boyfriend, Preston Vinyard, in which he bit her finger, spit on her, poured beer on her and called her Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 404 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009

Page 3 of 8 Jane Doe No. 2 v, Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe No. 4 's Motion for Protective Order Against Second Day of Deposition of Plaintiff Extending Past Seven Hours in the Aggregate Page 3 of8 degrading names such as "whore," "slut," and "cunt" ilih at 29-30; 296-298); (3) three pregnancies with Vinyard that ended in three abortions, which she failed to disclose to various physicians, including her own psychiatric expert, Dr. Kliman, and which she admitted caused her more emotional trauma than her encounters with Mr. Epstein (id. at 299-306); and (4) arrests, including a recent arrest in Jupiter, Florida in October 2009 for domestic violence where she attacked, hit and bit her current boyfriend and about which she asserted the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions (id. at 25-26; 339; 346-48). Despite such emotional trauma, Jane Doe No. 4 never sought treatment from a mental health professional until she was sent to Dr. Kliman by her attorneys after this suit was filed ilih at 242). 9. Moreover, while Jane Doe No. 4 was seeing Mr. Epstein (both before and after she turned 18), which she testified was between 30 and 50 times (id. at 77-78), including her freshman year of college at Lynn University (id. at 74), she made a sex tape depicting vagina and oral sex with her boyfriend which she voluntarily showed to Mr. Epstein (id. at 226-230). She also admitted to lying to the police ilih at 12-13) and lying to physicians, including her own expert, Dr. Kliman ilih at 3 06). 10. Epstein is also entitled to depose Jane Doe No. 4 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 No. 4's counsel instructed her not to answer any questions "relate[ed] to sexual partners' names or sexual positions". See Excerpt of 10/27/2009 Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 at 5 attached as Exhibit B. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 404 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009

Page 4 of 8 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe No. 4 's Motion for Protective Order Against Second Day of Deposition of Plaintiff Extending Past Seven Hours in the Aggregate Page 4 of8 I!. 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 and/or damages as a result of the other claimed sexual misconduct with males." See DE #377 at 9. 12. The Court went on, "the requests at issue go to the very heart of Plaintiffs damage claims, requesting not only general information relating to Plaintiffs 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). 13. All of the foregoing issues are directly relevant to Jane Doe No. 4's damage claims and credibility in this case and Epstein is entitled to fully discover all such issues. 14. Epstein simply requests an additional four hours to complete Jane Doe No. 4's deposition. Given that her 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 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 404 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009

Page 5 of 8 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No.08-CJV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe No. 4 's Motion for Protective Order Against Second Day of Deposition of Plaintiff Extending Past Seven Hours in the Aggregate Page 5 of8 discoverable, but goes to the heart of Plaintiffs damages, Epstein should be permitted four hours to finish Jane Doe No. 4'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, 1 the defendant requested additional time to depose 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 No. 4 as to all information which might properly be considered in her deposition such as information regarding her past sexual history. 17. Per the Court's Order (DE #377), Epstein is entitled to discover information regarding Jane Doe No. 4's past sexual history. If the Court were to grant Jane Doe No. 4'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 1 Despite Jane Doe No. 4's assertion that "[t]he nature of this case, for damages arising from sexual misconduct, does not warrant a deposition in excess of seven hours" and her suggestion that only complex commercial cases involving voluminous documents justifies exceeding the seven hour limit, Osborne plainly demonstrates that even a runwof~thc~mill personal injury action involving neck and back injuries sustained by an employee of a timber cutting company can merit a deposition in excess of seven hours. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 404 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009

Page 6 of 8 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No.08-CIV-80119-MARRAIJOI-INSON Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe No. 4 's Motion for Protective Order Against Second Day of Deposition oJ Plaintiff Extending Past Seven Hours in the Aggregate Page 6 of8 Epstein was required to do because the Court denied an earlier motion for continuance (DE # 187) and said in essence, do your discovery. Granting Jane Doe No. 4'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 No. 4's Motion (DE #378) and permit Epstein an additional four hours to complete Jane Doe No. 4's deposition. WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests the Court deny Jane Doe No. 4's Motion (DE #392) and permit an additional four hours for the completion of Jane Doe No. 4's deposition and grant any additional relief the deems just and proper. By:---+------ ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar o. 224162 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 404 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009

Page 7 of 8 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No. 08-CJV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe No. 4 's Motion for Protective Order Against Second Day of Deposition of Plaintiff Extending Past Seven Hours in the Aggregate Page7of8 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: __ _µc::::_ __ ROBERT . CRITTON, JR., ESQ. 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. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- 80232, 08-8038~ 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 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. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 404 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2009