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, ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NOS.’ 2, 3, and 5-8 RESPONSE TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRESIDENTIAL WOMEN’S 1. Plaintiffs, Jane Doe Nos. 2, 3, and 5-8 (“Plaintiffs) served a timely objection to Jeffrey Epstein’s Subpoena Duces Tecum issued to Presidential Women’s Center. CENTER TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Plaintiffs, Jane Doe Nos. 2, 3, and 5-8, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file their Response to Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion to Compel Presidential Women’s Center to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum dated November 13, 2009, and state as follows: See Exhibit “A”. In the subpoena, Jeffrey Epstein seeks records on any abortion-related or other services rendered to the Plaintiffs.1 2. Plaintiffs objected to the subpoena on the basis that there is no evidence or other indication whatsoever to indicate that Jane Doe Nos. 2, 3, and 5-8 have had an abortion or 1 Jeffrey Epstein contends, without support, that “Presidential Women’s Center is the primary, if not the only, facility in Palm Beach County the performs abortions.” Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 442 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2009

Page 1 of 4 2 otherwise been seen or treated at Presidential Women’s Center, 100 Northpoint Parkway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401. 3. As a result, said subpoena is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and constitutes an invasion of the privacy rights of the plaintiffs. The subpoena seeking records relating to these Plaintiffs is a pure “shot in the dark” attempt to obtain discovery, rather than the reasonably calculated discovery effort as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. If a party could simply subpoena all potential medical providers in a particular geographic area based on the possibility that that treatment was rendered to a party, it would wreak havoc on the discovery process and render the rules of procedure meaningless. 5. Jeffrey Epstein cannot deny this subpoena is merely a “shot in the dark”. Remarkably, Epstein’s Motion provides no evidence or other indication that Plaintiffs were ever treated at or seen by Presidential Women’s Center. 6. The only Plaintiff who Epstein even attempts to connect to Presidential Women’s Center is Jane Doe No. 5. Epstein contends that “Jane Doe No. 5’s medical records indicate that she had four pregnancies and two abortions.” (D.E. 431, ¶ 6). This statement is simply untrue. In fact, the plain language of the medical records relied upon by Epstein reveals that these medical records do not belong to Jane Doe No. 5, but instead are of an unknown fifty-two (52) year old Hispanic female. See Epstein’s Motion to Compel, Exhibit “C”. This lack of attention to detail reflects an utter lack of diligence by Epstein as even the one piece of “evidence” upon which Epstein relies is erroneous. In reality, Jane Doe No. 5 has had no abortions and has never been to Presidential Women’s Center. Epstein should immediately Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 442 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2009

Page 2 of 4 -- 3 withdraw all incorrect references in his motion to Jane Doe No. 5 having had four pregnancies and two abortions. 7. Based on the foregoing, Epstein’s subpoena is objectionable on the basis that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and constitutes an invasion of privacy. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3, and 5-8 request that this Court deny Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion to Compel Non-Party Presidential Women’s Center to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum in its entirety, sustain Plaintiffs’ objections as to the subpoena duces tecum, and all other relief this Court deems just and appropriate. Dated: December 21, 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 Doe Nos. 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 442 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2009

Page 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent to the following via e-mail transmission, this 21st day of December, 2009: Louis Silber, Esq. Attorney for Presidential Women’s Center [email protected] Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Michael James Pike, 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 442 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2009