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 RENEWED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO THE SCOPE OF INQUIRY AT THE DEPOSITIONS OF 1. By Order dated November 19, 2009 (DE 418), in Case No. 08-80380, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4’s Motion for Protective Order was stricken for failure to comply with this Court’s August 11, 2009 Notice to Counsel, and May 14, 2009, Order Consolidating Cases. Plaintiff’s counsel inadvertently, in error, filed this Motion under Jane Doe No. 4’s case number instead of under the consolidated case number, 08-80119. Accordingly, Plaintiff renews her Motion by filing under the correct case number. JANE DOE NO. 4’s PARENTS, AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4 (“Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4’s Renewed Motion for Protective Order, pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1, and states as follows: 2. Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein have advised Plaintiffs’ counsel that they intend to take the depositions of the mother and father of Jane Doe No. 4 within the next few weeks. Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant taking the depositions of her parents, but a Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 420 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2009

Page 1 of 6 2 protective order from this Court is necessary as to the scope of the inquiry into one particular discrete matter. 3. At Jane Doe No. 4’s deposition on October 27, 2009, she testified that she has had abortions. She further testified that neither of her parents is aware that she has had abortions. At no time has she ever had any intention of disclosing the information about her abortions to her parents. Jane Doe No. 4 is presently 22 years old. 4. Counsel for Defendant Epstein asked Jane Doe No. 4 a number of questions at her deposition indicating clearly that Jane Doe No. 4’s abortions would be a subject of inquiry in her parents’ depositions. This included the following inappropriate questions: a. “Does your mom know you aborted three kids?” b. “Does your dad know you aborted three kids?” c. “What do you think they’d think?” and d. “Do you think they’re going to be happy about that?”1 See 5. It is obvious from the questioning at Jane Doe No. 4’s deposition that Defendant’s attorney intends to inform Jane Doe No. 4’s parents about the abortions through leading questions at their depositions. Exhibit “A”. 6. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c)(1) allows the court to issue an order to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense by several methods, including “(D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters” upon good cause shown by the moving party. “The good cause 1 Furthermore, Jane Doe No. 4’s sister, Y.B., was asked about her knowledge of Jane Doe No. 4’s abortions at her deposition. Unlike Jane Doe No. 4’s parents, Y.B. was already aware that her sister had abortions. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 420 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2009

Page 2 of 6 3 standard for issuing a protective order requires the Court to balance the moving party’s interest in preventing the discovery sought against the other person’s interest in seeking the discovery.” Harrison v. Burlage, 2009 WL 2230794 at 4 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (citing Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. 7. Plaintiffs great concern is that through leading questions Defendant’s counsel will inform Jane Doe No. 4’s parents about the abortions. Epstein has no conceivable interest in interrogating Jane Doe No. 4’s parents about Jane Doe No. 4’s abortions. Since they are unaware of the abortions, neither will be able to provide any information about when the procedures occurred, her mental state at the time of each procedure, whether any complications arose, or any other information that could reasonably be calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Epstein is not alleged to be the man responsible for impregnating Jane Doe No. 4 on any occasion. Counsel intends to inquire into these matters solely for the purpose of harassing, embarrassing, and oppressing Jane Doe No. 4. Plaintiff does not object to non-leading questions on this subject matter, such as “do you know whether Jane Doe No. 4 has ever had an abortion?” , 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001). 8. In addition, leading questions revealing Jane Doe No. 4’s abortions would have the added effect of embarrassing, harassing, upsetting, and shaming Jane Doe No. 4’s parents, who are non-parties to this lawsuit. The line of inquiry could lead to irreparable damage to Jane Doe No. 4’s relationship with her Roman Catholic parents. Further, Jane Doe No. 4’s parents are not expert witnesses and their opinion as to whether these abortions (which they do not even know about) affected Jane Doe No. 4 would not seem to have any relevance. 9. Therefore, Jane Doe No. 4 has a great interest in preventing the discovery that outweighs any conceivable interest by Epstein in this discovery and a Rule 26(c)(1)(D) protective order is appropriate. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 420 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2009

Page 3 of 6 4 10. Furthermore, Jane Doe No. 4 has not authorized the release of her private medical information to third parties. She has not waived her privacy interests in the medical information such that disclosure to a nonparty would be authorized. Disclosure to her parents would constitute the public disclosure of private facts, a violation of Jane Doe No. 4’s right of privacy, which she has not waived simply by virtue of being a plaintiff in a lawsuit for sexual abuse against a convicted sex offender. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe 4, respectfully requests that this Court issue a protective order prohibiting leading questions at the depositions of Jane Doe No. 4’s parents on the subject of Jane Doe No. 4’s abortions; limiting Defendant’s attorney to asking only open- ended questions on the subject of abortion, such as whether they know if Jane Doe No. 4 has ever had an abortion; and all such other relief this Court deems just and 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, as Defendant’s counsel has advised that Defendant opposes this motion. Dated: November 19, 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 Jane Does 2-8 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 420 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2009

Page 4 of 6 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 19, 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 420 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2009

Page 5 of 6 6 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] /s/ Adam D. Horowitz Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 420 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2009