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, ____________________________________/ PLAINTIFFS JANE DOES NOS. 2-8’ MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF SENSITIVE FIFTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENTS AND SUBMIT Plaintiffs Jane Does Nos. 2-8, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file this Memorandum in Response to Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versions of Sensitive Fifth Amendment Arguments and Submit Unredacted Arguments to the Court (DE 518), and state as follows: UNREDACTED ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT (DE 518) Defendant Jeffrey Epstein (“Defendant” or “Epstein”) seeks to make additional in camera submissions in support of his appeal of Orders of the Magistrate Judge. Epstein has already made in camera submissions in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Net Worth Discovery, which were reviewed and considered by the Magistrate Judge in making her rulings. Introduction Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010

Page 1 of 6 2 (See, e.g., Order dated March 4, 2010 (DE 480), p. 6). Defendant now seeks to make new submissions in camera for purposes of this Local Mag. R. 4 appeal. Defendant’s Motion should be denied, first, because he had ample opportunity to make in camera submissions and create a record while the matter was before the Magistrate Judge.1 Additional in camera submissions should not be allowed on appeal. Second, it appears that Defendant is seeking permission to redact legal arguments in his memoranda to be filed on appeal. Plaintiffs are unfairly prejudiced by the filing of memoranda with legal arguments redacted. It is difficult, if not impossible, for Plaintiffs to respond to such arguments, and it is not necessary for purposes of protecting Defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege that Defendant be allowed to file redacted legal memoranda.2 This Court has discretion to reject newly offered evidence in an appeal of a magistrate judge’s decision. Factual Submissions on Appeal Should Not be Allowed See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000) (reviewing cases on this issue decided under 28 U.S.C. §636). Defendant had the right to make in camera submissions on the underlying Motion, and he exercised that right. He was given every opportunity to substantiate his claims of privilege before the Magistrate Judge. See U.S. v. Argomaniz 1 Nothing in Defendant’s Motion indicates that he seeks to submit in camera evidence that is newly discovered subsequent to the Magistrate’s Orders. 2 Indeed, Defendant’s Memorandum in response to Plaintiff’s Rule 4 appeal of the same Magistrate Judge’s Order (DE 522) contains no redactions. That Memorandum refers to Defendant’s in camera submissions provided to the Magistrate Judge, and generally to the “target offenses” outlined in those submissions. Certainly, if Defendant was capable of making his legal arguments without redactions in that filing, there is no reason why he should have to file redacted legal memoranda in his own appeal of the same Magistrate Judge’s Order. , 925 F.2d 1349 (11th Cir. 1991) (discussing in camera procedure for determining application of privilege). Indeed, his claims of privilege were upheld by the Magistrate Judge as Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010

Page 2 of 6 3 to the great majority of the documents requested. Under these circumstances, there are no considerations of fairness or the Fifth Amendment that would make it necessary or appropriate for Defendant to file anything further in camera. Defendant Should Not Be Authorized to The Orders issued by the Magistrate Judge refer generally to the Defendant’s in camera submissions, without discussing their contents. Nothing in the Magistrate’s Order is redacted or hidden from Plaintiffs and the public record. Nonetheless, Defendant seeks to make in camera arguments on appeal in response to these Orders, to which Plaintiffs cannot fairly respond. It can be expected that, if authorized, Defendant will file memoranda of record that are laden with thick black lines at all relevant points. At this time, on appeal, it is unnecessary and unfairly prejudicial for Defendant to make his arguments in this manner. The in camera submissions and the memoranda filed of record should be separate and distinct. Defendant has already made his in camera submissions. As the Magistrate Judge did in her Orders, the legal arguments on appeal can be made in such a manner that does not require redaction, Redact His Legal Memoranda on Appeal 3 to which Plaintiffs can then reasonably formulate a response. Defendant Epstein cites to no authority that would authorize him to make new in camera submissions on appeal. The cases relied upon by Defendant in his initial Memorandum apply only to in camera inspection of the documents the movant seeks to protect in discovery, and not the arguments made to protect those documents. See United States v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 1504 (M.D. Fla. 1989); In re Duque Defendant has also filed a “Notice of Supplemental Authority” presenting two additional cases, only one of which merits discussion. In , 134 B.R. 679 (S.D. Fla. 1991). Methodist Hospitals, Inc. v. Sullivan 3 See footnote 2 above. , 91 F.3d Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010

Page 3 of 6 4 1026, 1031-32 (7th Cir. 1996), the Court instructed a party to redact from its legal memorandum the personal income figures of five physicians, in lieu of filing the entire document under seal. The Court found that the inclusion of this income information in the memorandum was “gratuitous.” 91 F.3d at 1031. In contrast, Defendant Epstein undoubtedly intends to redact wholesale portions of his Memorandum containing the critical portions of his legal arguments. Methodist Hospital is not authority for such an unfairly prejudicial submission. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendant’s Motion to File Redacted Versions of Papers in Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Orders be denied, and such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) [email protected] Jessica D. Arbour (FL Bar No. 67885) [email protected] MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010

Page 4 of 6 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 12, 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/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010

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 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010