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. 3’s MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 3, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Memorandum in Response to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (D.E. 450) and Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (D.E. 444), and states as follows: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 1. On January 13, 2010, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions along with his own Motion for Sanctions against Jane Doe No. 3 pertaining to the termination of her Rule 35 medical examination. The Response/Motion filed by Defendant Epstein contains multiple misleading and inaccurate statements of both law and fact. 2. Defendant Epstein claims that Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 3’s attorneys were aware that Defendant Epstein kept an office in the building where the medical examination (IME) of Jane Doe No. 3 was to take place on November 24, 2009. This is false, and it is also irrelevant, Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010

Page 1 of 6 2 as this Court previously entered an Order which unequivocally placed an affirmative burden upon Epstein not to be seen by the Plaintiffs at their IMEs. (D.E. 401). 3. The Affidavit filed by Jane Doe No. 3’s attorney, Jessica Arbour, states that counsel had no knowledge that Epstein maintained an office in that building. See Affidavit of Jessica Arbour, Esq., attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (D.E. 444) as Exhibit “A.” Epstein’s alleged employer, The Florida Science Foundation, is not listed on the building’s directory in the lobby of the building. Furthermore, according to the Florida Secretary of State, the Florida Science Foundation was formally dissolved on September 25, 2009, two months before the IME. See Exhibit A. Plaintiff’s counsel had no knowledge that Epstein still maintained an office in that building until counsel for Epstein, Michael Pike, called Plaintiff’s counsel after the November 24 incident. Mr. Pike “explained to Mr. Horowitz that Epstein’s office was still located in One Clearlake Center.” See 4. Defendant Epstein claims that this Court entered an Order directing the Plaintiffs’ counsel to contact his attorneys’ offices to advise them when the Plaintiffs were going outside during breaks in the IME. However, the Order referenced by Epstein applies only to the depositions of the Plaintiffs, including Jane Doe No. 3. That Order (D.E. 369) was entered after Epstein appeared at the deposition of another Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 4, in violation of at least two court orders and a specific agreement of the parties. Nothing in the Order suggests that it would apply to any proceeding other than a deposition. It makes no reference to, nor does it contemplate, Epstein’s appearance at Rule 35 examinations, which is controlled by a separate Order (D.E. 401). Epstein’s Response, et al. (D.E. 450), p. 3, ¶ 4. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010

Page 2 of 6 3 5. Defendant Epstein conspicuously fails to address the Order (D.E. 401) that expressly applies to the IMEs of the Plaintiffs, including Jane Doe No. 3. The Order specifically prohibited Epstein from “being seen” by the Plaintiffs on the date they appeared for their IMEs. 6. Furthermore, the Defendant’s expert repeatedly told Jane Doe No. 3 that she was allowed to take breaks throughout the day, specifically instructing her that she could go outside and smoke if she wanted to do so, without warning her that Epstein could be on the premises. He also mentioned that they would likely break approximately every two hours when the videotapes were changed. See 7. Any assertions made by Defendant Epstein that he did not notice Jane Doe No. 3 or recognize her attorney when he left the building on November 24 are absurd. Jane Doe No. 3’s attorney, Jessica Arbour, stated that Epstein clearly made eye contact with her that was more than merely incidental; he attempted to stare her down. Exhibit “B”. See 8. Epstein attempts to convince this Court that an “alleged brief encounter” was not at all traumatizing to Jane Doe No. 3 and could not possibly have rendered her so distraught that she could not proceed with another two hours of invasive, repetitive IME questioning about her most intimate personal thoughts, feelings, and experiences. Yet he fails to support his assertions with any competent expert opinion that would suggest Jane Doe No. 3 could not have been traumatized by the incident. On the contrary, his own expert repeatedly and profusely apologized to Jane Doe No. 3’s attorney, making statements that he had “never even met the man [Mr. Epstein]” and that he “understood” the decision to terminate the IME after the incident with Epstein. Arbour Affidavit, ¶¶ 8-9. 1 1 Epstein also argues that Dr. Hall, the Defendant’s expert, did not learn of the incident until after Ms. Arbour terminated the IME on the record. This is inconsistent with Ms. Arbour’s statement that Dr. Hall began apologizing about the incident the moment she and Jane Doe No. 3 re- Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010

Page 3 of 6 4 9. In his Motion for Sanctions against Jane Doe No. 3, Epstein has the audacity to suggest that Jane Doe No. 3 was at fault for the incident that occurred on November 24, 2009, when he recklessly and flagrantly violated the authority of this Court by appearing at the location of her IME. Any costs incurred by the Defendant as a result of the premature termination of Jane Doe No. 3’s IME are the fault of Jeffrey Epstein alone. 10. Jane Doe No. 3 does not oppose completion of the last two hours of her eight hour IME. She will appear for the last two hours of her IME without additional order of this Court, but has sought relief from this Court ordering that it occur in a location other than West Palm Beach, Florida, where she can feel some level of security that Epstein will not appear at her IME and again violate a Court Order. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 3, respectfully requests this Court (1) grant her Motion for Sanctions (D.E. 444) against Jeffrey Epstein, (2) order completion of her IME at a location other than West Palm Beach, Florida, (3) deny Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions against Jane Doe No. 3 for unilaterally terminating her IME in its entirety, and (4) all other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. 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 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 entered the offices where the IME was taking place, before she went on the record to terminate the IME, and even before she had a chance to advise him off the record about what had occurred. See Arbour Affidavit, ¶ 12. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010

Page 4 of 6 5 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 1, 2010, 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 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010

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] Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010