Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-Ryskamp JANE DOE No. 102, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY AND EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE #102 IN THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE #102 IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein" or "Defendant"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Response In Opposition to Plaintiff, Jane Doe #102's Motion to Proceed Anonymously and files his Motion requesting that this Court enter an order identifying in the style of this case the complete legal name of the Plaintiff, JANE DOE #102 ("JANE DOE"), to substitute her complete legal name In this case in place of "JANE DOE" and, equally important, allowing Defendant to identify her in various subpoenas that Epstein must serve so Epstein can defend this case. In support, Mr. Epstein states as follows: EFTA00175214

• Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 3 of 12 denied, but Epstein's Motion to Identify Jane Doe must be granted. Despite Plaintiff's allegations in the Motion to Proceed Anonymously, this Court has not "allowed" any Plaintiff to proceed anonymously. Quite simply, that is the way each Plaintiff chose to file each of their respective cases, all of which are currently being challenged in those other matters by Motion to Identify. 4. Importantly, JANE DOE claims that she has and will suffer ". . .physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, separation from her family . . . , and medical and psychological expenses. . . , loss on income, loss of the capacity to earn income In the future, and loss of the capacity to enjoy life" ¶¶28, Comp. DE 1; see also ¶¶36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 61, 65, and 69, Comp., DE 1. 5. Epstein has a constitutional due process right to defend himself and to seek the production of information that will assist in his defense of the allegations in the Complaint. In this case, Plaintiffs counsel intends on serving subpoenas on Plaintiffs treating physicians and other third parties. Thus, this motion seeks not only a denial Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed Anonymously but to Identify JANE DOE In the style of this case and to identify JANE DOE in various third-party subpoenas for discovery purposes. 6. The undersigned's experience In "Jane Doe" lawsuits is that once a Plaintiff is identified, other individuals come forward in the discovery phase with information which often directly contradicts allegations as to the events and 3 EFTA00175215

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 5 of 12 agreed that the subpoenas filed with the clerk would be redacted. Several attorneys agreed to this procedure in those cases. In Federal Court, subpoenas are not filed with the clerk. Thus, In this matter, the undersigned offered to serve the third-party subpoenas with plaintiff's full name, date of birth and social security number (last four digits) and would agree to redact any identifying information on any documents filed with this court if that ultimately became necessary. 9. Moreover, when an order from the court is attached to the Subpoena, treaters and other third parties produce the records and show up to the depositions with the records requested because the deponent knows what to bring by virtue of knowing the identity of the Plaintiff. 10. Epstein's counsel intends to serve and depose witnesses duces tecum. If Epstein is not permitted to identify JANE DOE (thus allowing her to proceed anonymously), how will any deponent know who the parties are and what to bring to the deposition pursuant to the duces tecum? Further, how will Epstein be able to defend the claims. Just like the Plaintiff, Epstein is entitled to due process. If the Court allows Jane Doe to proceed anonymously, Jane Doe will be permitted to present her case and Epstein will be limited in his defenses. 11. While it is within the sound discretion of this court to allow a party to proceed anonymously, Plaintiff should not attempt to utilize that discretion as a shield from legitimate and necessary discovery. Epstein has a fundamental due process right to conduct discovery. EFTA00175216

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 7 of 12 b. whether the party defending the suit would be prejudiced; c. whether the plaintiff is required to disclose information of utmost intimacy; d. whether the plaintiff is compelled to admit an intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution; e. whether the Plaintiff would risk suffering injury if identified; f. whether the interests of children are at stake; and g. whether there are less drastic means of protecting the legitimate interests of either party. Doe v. Frank 951 F.2d at 323. Plaintiff does not fall under any of the factors. Moreover, even If she did meet one of the factors, "[t]he fact that [a] Doe [Plaintiff] may suffer some personal embarrassment, standing alone, does not require the granting of a request to proceed under a pseudonym." Id' see also Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D. 159 (N.D. Calif. 1981). Any substantial privacy interests JANE DOE has must outweigh the customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness to judicial proceedings. Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d at 323; Doe v. Berostron, 2009 WL 528623 (C.A.9(Or.))(denying request to proceed anonymously in civil action by Plaintiff where Plaintiff's arrest, prosecution and acquittal were matters of public record). 14. In Sweetland v. State, 535 So.2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), the court reasoned that the purpose of discovery is to eliminate the likelihood of surprise and to Insure a fair opportunity to prepare for trial. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1)• see also Surf Drugs. Inc.. v. Vermette 236 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. 7 EFTA00175217

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 9 of 12 damages. Plaintiff is claiming emotional/psychological damages. Therefore, Epstein is entitled to know her psychological condition(s) before and after the alleged incident(s) she references in the Complaint. In particular, JANE DOE alleges specific disorders as a result of Epstein's alleged conduct — suffer . .physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, separation from her family . . . , and medical and psychological expenses. . . , loss on income, loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and loss of the capacity to enjoy life." (Emphasis Added). See supra. Epstein is also entitled to know, among other things, whether she had any physical complaints or whether there was ever any evidence of physical battery on JANE DOE's body from the acts she complains of in the Complaint. The need to serve third-party subpoenas on medical doctors is a basic discovery need related to the claims alleged by JANE DOE for which Plaintiff's counsel refuses to compromise. Balas v. Ruzzo 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998)(discoverability of Plaintiff's history of sexual activity is relevant to damages); United States v. Bear Stops 997 F.2d 451 (81h Cir. 1993)(deals with "admissibility of other acts of sexual abuse by individuals other than the defendant to explain why a victim of abuse exhibited behavioral manifestations of a sexually abused child.") If Plaintiff saw a psychologist or other physician during or after the time periods she claims she was assaulted by Epstein but either did not discuss or did discuss the incidents (or lack thereof) would be 9 EFTA00175218

• Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2009 Page 11 of 12 was charged with any crimes. If Jane Doe was charged with crimes, Epstein is entitled to obtain certified copies of those crimes Plaintiff may have committed for purposes of discovery and impeachment. Questions will be asked regarding those crimes (e.g., Have you been convicted of a crime of dishonesty or false statement? If so, how many times? Have you been convicted of a felony? If so, how many times?) To hold otherwise would not only prevent broad discovery but would ultimately result in reversible error at any trial. II. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief 22. Epstein requests the following relief: a. That JANE DOE's Motion to Proceed Anonymously be denied; b. That this Court grant Epstein's Motion and that JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the style of this case; and c. That Epstein be granted leave to identify JANE DOE by her legal name in Third-Party Subpoenas (but not file them in Court or, if required, in a redacted form). WHEREFORE, Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, respectfully requests that this Court enter said order granting the relief requested above, and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. By: ROBERT D. C ITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. 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 _EL day of Mav, 2009 11 EFTA00175219

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 1 of 7 AEV U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Doe No. 102 v. Epstein Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Lead case: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Member case: (View Member Case) Cause: 28:1391 Personal Injury Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 102 V. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Date Filed: 05/01/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question represented by Katherine Warthen Ezell Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al City National Bank Building 25 W Flagler Street Suite 800 Miami FL 33130-1780 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robert C. Josefsberg Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al City National Bank Building 25 W Flagler Street Suite 800 Miami FL 33130-1780 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Robert Deweese Critton , Jr. Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman https://ecf.flsd.useourts.gov/egi-bin/DIctRpt.p17825839498761356-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175220

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 2 of 7 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Amicus United States of America represented by Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED United States Attorney's Office 500 East Broward Blvd 7th Floor Ft Lauderdale , FL 33394 xt. 3546 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed # dear Docket Text 05/01/2009 1 r COMPLAINT and Demand for Jury Trial against Jeffrey Epstein. Filing fee $350.00. Receipt No. 100030, filed by Jane Doe No. 102.(caw) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/01/2009 2 r Summons Issued as to Jeffrey Epstein. (caw) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/01/2009 3 Sealed Document. (igo) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/01/2009 4 Sealed Document. (igo) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/11/2009 5 r RESPONSE/REPLY to 4 Sealed Document, 3 Sealed Document Opposition to Motion to Proceed Anonymously by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/11/2009) 05/11/2009 6 r NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Robert Deweese Critton, Jr on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/11/2009) 05/11/2009 7 MOTION to Compel and/or identify Jane doe #102 in the style of this case ( Responses due by 5/29/2009), MOTION to identify jane doe #102 in the third-party subpoenas for purposes of discovery, with incorporated memorandum of law by Jeffrey Epstein.(see docket entry 5 for image) (tas) (Entered: 05/12/2009) https://eef.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.p17825839498761356-L_801 0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175221

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 3 of 7 05/12/2009 8 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 5 Response/Reply (Other) Error - Two or More Document Events Filed as One; Correction - Additional event(s) 7 MOTION to Compel and/or identift Jane doe #102 in the style of this case MOTION to identify jane doe #102 in the third-party subpoenas for purposes of discovery, with incorporated memorandum of law. docketed by Clerk. Instruction to Filer - In the future, please select all applicable events. It is not necessary to refile this document. (tas) (Entered: 05/12/2009) 05/13/2009 9 r ORDER of Transfer/REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Kenneth A. Marra for all further proceedings. Senior Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp no longer assigned to case. Signed by Senior Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 5/12/2009. (tas) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 Cases associated. (ir) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 10 n ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES. Hereinafter all motions and other court filings that relate to discovery and all procedural motions that relate to multiple cases shall be styled with all of the case names and numbers and shall be filed in Case No. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (ir) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 11 r ORDER REQUESTING UNITED STATES PROVIDE POSITION TO MOTION TO STAY. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Motion to Stay DE 51) Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. 00 (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 12 ORDER terminating 7 Motion to Compel; terminating 7 Motion. See Order consolidating cases. See procedural motions pending: DE 91 in 08-80119.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/20/2009 13 n NOTICE by Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Ob'ections to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Compel And/Or Identi in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identify . in Third- arty Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, Or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponte, With Inorporated Memorandum of Law Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Hill, Jack) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/20/2009 14 ORDER S G in all Epstein cases EXCEPT case no. 08-80119: Notice by M. of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to Epstein's Motion to Compel and/or Identify. This Notice should only be filed in 08-80119, not in all of the Epstein cases.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/20/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/22/2009 15 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 11 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by .. Error - Incorrect Document https://eef.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?825839498761356-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175222

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 4 of 7 Link/No Link;. Instruction to filer - In the future, please link the document to the proper entry. It is not necessary to refile this document. (Is) (Entered: 05/22/2009) 05/26/2009 16 n Plaintiffs MOTION to Preserve Evidence Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Jane Doe No. 101, Jane Doe No. 102. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 9:09- cv-80656-KAM(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/26/2009) 05/27/2009 17 ORDER terminating(28) Motion to Preserve Evidence in case 9:09-cv- 80591-KAM; terminating(16) Motion to Preserve Evidence in case 9:09- cv-80656-KAM This motion is pending ONLY in case no. 08-80119.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/27/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 05/27/2009) 05/27/2009 18 r NOTICE by Jane Doe re (111 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90)Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 05/27/2009) 05/28/2009 19 ORDER STRIKING Notice by Jane Doe in all Epstein cases EXCEPT in case 08-80119. This Notice should only be filed in 08-80119, not in all of the Epstein cases... Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/28/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/28/2009) 05/29/2009 20 r NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by on behalf of United States of America Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80 119-KAM et al. , IM) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 21 n RESPONSE to Motion re (72 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (62) Amended Complaint, (57 in 9:08-cv-80232- KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (50) Amended Complaint, (24 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (1) Complaint, (23 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (18) Amended Complaint, (22 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (19) Amended Complaint, (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint, (68 in 9:08-cv-80381- KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (60) Amended Complaint, (51 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (40) Amended Complaint and or Continue Action Filed Pursuant to Court's Order Requesting Government's Position filed by United States of America. https://ec£flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?825839498761356-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175223

CM/ECF - Live Database - 11. d Page 5 of 7 Rtlue17.6/8/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. ( , M =) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 22 RESPONSE in Opposition re (90 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identify Doe in Style of Case and in Third-Party Subpoenas, (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 23 ORDER STRIKING (124 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, 105 in 9:08-cv-80811- ICAM, 74 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM, 72 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 106 in 9:08- cv-80232-KAM, 123 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM, 35 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 25 in 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, 60 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 22 in 9:09-cv- 80656-1CAM, 107 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM) Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101 DO NOT FILE IN EVERY EPSTEIN CASE. SEE ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/29/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08- cv-80119-KAM et al. (Ic3) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 24 r MOTION for Leave to File UNDER SEAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO UNSEAL THE NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al.(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 25 r MOTION for Hearing MOTION TO RESCHEDULE HEARING by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Josefsberg, Robert) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 06/01/2009 26 ORDER STRIKING (28 in 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, 126 in 9:08-cv-80380- KAM, 109 in 9:08-cv-80232-KAM, 25 in 9:09-cv-80656-KAM, 77 in 9:08- cv-80993-KAM, 38 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 110 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM, 63 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 75 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 108 in 9:08-cv- 80811-KAM) Motion to Continue Hearing filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101, (76 in 9:08-cv-80993-ICAM, 109 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM, 108 in 9:08-cv-80232-KAM, 62 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 125 in 9:08-cv- 80380-KAM, 74 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 24 in 9:09-cv-80656-KAM, 37 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 107 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM, 27 in 9:09-cv-80469- KAM) Motion for Leave to File, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. THESE DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE FILED ONLY IN 08-80119. SEE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/1/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 06/01/2009) 06/04/2009 27 r REPLY to Response to Motion re (113 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Plaintiffs MOTION Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No- Contact Order Plaints Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Reply to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Response to Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and https://ecf.flsd.useourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17825839498761356-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175224

CM/ECF - Live Database - tlsd Page 6 of 7 Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for a No-Contact Order filed by Jane Doe No. 101, Jane Doe No. 102. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 06/04/2009 28 ORDER STRIKING (112 in 9:08-cv-80381-ICAM, 111 in 9:08-cv-80232- KAM, 136 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, 111 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM, 128 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM, 65 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 79 in 9:08-cv-80893- KAM, 42 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 27 in 9:09-cv-80656-KAM, 32 in 9:09- cv-80469-KAM, 79 in 9:08-cv-80993-ICAM) Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101 Document stricken for failure to follow Courts orders. DO NOT FILE A DOCUMENT IN EVERY EPSTEIN CASE if it is to be filed only in 08-80119. See Case Management Order and contact CM/ECF Support for assistance in proper filing.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/4/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119- KAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 06/08/2009 29 ri RESPONSE to Motion re (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) filed by Jane Doe. Replies due by 6/18/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/08/2009 30 r NOTICE by Jane Doe re (113 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Plaintiffs MOTION Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No-Contact Order -Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 Notice of Joinder Associated Cases: 9:08- cv-80119-KAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/10/2009 31 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 29 Response to Motion, filed by Jane Doe. Error - Document Incomplete, i.e. Missing Page 1 on Attachments: #2 Exhibit B . (Is) (Entered: 06/10/2009) 06/10/2009 32 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 30 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Jane Doe. Error - Wrong Event Selected;. Instruction to Filer - In the future, please select the proper event, i.e. Notice of Adoption. It is not necessary to refile this document. (ls) (Entered: 06/10/2009) View Selected or Download Selected PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 06/10/2009 14:37:13 PACER Login: du4480 Client Code: r it https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p ?825839498761356-L_801 0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175225

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 7 of 7 !Description: Billable Pages: Docket Report !! Search Criteria: 4 Cost: 9:09-cv-80656- KAM 0.32 https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.pl?825839498761356-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175226

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08- 80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 7 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey Epstein, as follows: Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Jane Doe No. 7 is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, and is sui juris. 2. This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a minor. 3. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. 4. This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. 5. This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; and (ii) is between citizens of different states. 6. Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because Plaintiff alleges a claim under the laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental - 1 - EFTA00175227

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 3 of 8 generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session - and who were perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if allegations of improper conduct were made. This was an important element of Epstein's plan. 12. Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. The underage victim would be brought to Epstein's mansion, where she would be introduced to Epstein's assistant. Mould then bring the girl up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. The girl would then find herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. He woulddirect he rigl to give him a massage. Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including 13. Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, when Jane Doe was 16 years old, she was recruited by=It o give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. Jane was brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach. Once there, Jane was introduced to all who led her up the flight of stairs to the room with the massage table. In this room, Jane was directed by Epstein to give him a massage. During this massage, Epstein sexually assaulted Jane and Epstein then paid Jane money. 14. Jane returned on many occasions to the Palm Beach mansion to provide Epstein with massages for money. On those occasions, Epstein engaged in sexual contact and activity with Jane, which included, among other things, Epstein touching Jane's placing on her his sexual abuse continued over a period of approximately 18-24 months. 15. As a result of these encounters with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. - 3 - EFTA00175228

, Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 5 of 8 in mental or sexual injury that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired. 26. Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress and damage to Jane Doe, or Epstein acted with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. 27. As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane Doe, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 7 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT III Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. ti2422 28. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through I5 above. 29. Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. 30. On June 30, 2008, Epstein entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida §§ 796.07 and 796.03, in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case nos. 2008-cf- 00938 I AXX XMB and 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB), for conduct involving the same plan and scheme as alleged herein. 31. As to Plaintiff Jane Doe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of Florida Statute §796.07(2) (including subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) thereof), and other - 5 - EFTA00175229

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2009 Page 7 of 8 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 -7- EFTA00175230

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S (FIRST) AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files his Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [DE 19] and states: 1. Without knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "Olt would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. ad §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self- Incrimination (".,.court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. - EFTA00175231

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 3 of 10 Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein Page 3 7. As to the allegations in paragraphs 7 through 15 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Defendant exercises his Fifth Amendment Privilege against self- incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self- Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - `lilt would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 FIa.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants In civil actions. —"... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 8. In response to the allegations of paragraph 16, Defendant realleges and adopts his responses to paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth in paragraphs 1 through 7 above herein. 9. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-Incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 17 through 22 of the Second Amended Complaint. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4Ih DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination EFTA00175232

Casa 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 5 of 10 Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein Page 5 §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 FIa.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants In civil actions. —"... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self- incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief" which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 12. In response to the allegations of paragraph 29, Defendant realleges and adopts his responses to paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth in paragraphs 1 through 7 above herein. 13. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 30 through 35 of the Second Amended Complaint. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - lilt would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 FIa.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. —"... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self- EFTA00175233

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 7 of 10 Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein Page 7 7. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 8. As to Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages in Count I — "Sexual Assault & Battery," and Count II — "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," such claims are subject to the limitations as set forth in §768.72, et seq., Florida Statutes. 9. As to Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages in Count I — "Sexual Assault & Battery," and Count II — "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," such claims are subject to the constitutional limitations and guideposts as set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore, 116 S.Ct 1589 (1996); Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007); State Farm v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct 1513 (2003); Engle v. Liqoet Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Florida's Constitution, Art. I, §§2 and 9, prohibit the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments 10.As to Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages in Count I — "Sexual Assault & Battery," and Count II — "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," the determination of whether or not Defendant is liable for punitive damages Is required to be bifurcated from a determination of the amount to be imposed. 11. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for sexual assault and/or battery under Count I. 12. As to Count III, Plaintiff has failed to plead a cause of action as she does not and can not show a violation of a predicate act under 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2005). EFTA00175234

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 9 of 10 Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein Page 9 applying a novel construction of a criminal statute to conduct that neither the statute nor any prior judicial decision has fairly disclosed to be within its scope. 16.The applicable version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 creates a cause of action on behalf of a "minor." Plaintiff had attained the age of majority at the time of filing this action, and accordingly, her cause of action is barred. 17.Because Plaintiff has no claim under 18 U.S.C. §2255, this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction as to all claims asserted. 18.Application of the 18 U.S.C. §2255, as amended, effective July 27, 2006, is in violation of the constitutional principles of due process, the "Ex Post Facto" clause, and the Rule of Lenity, in that in amending the term "minor" to "person" as to those who may bring a cause of action impermissibly and unconstitutionally broadened the scope of persons able to bring a §2255 claim. 19. 18 U.S.C. §2255 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 141h Amendment under the U.S. Constitution, and thus Plaintiff's claim thereunder is barred. 20. 18 U.S.C. §2255 violates the constitutional guarantees of procedural and substantive due process. Procedural due process guarantees that a person will not be deprived of life, liberty or property without notice and opportunity to be heard. Substantive due process protects fundamental rights. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cause of action thereunder is barred. WHEREFORE Defendant requests that this Court deny the lief sought by Plaintiff. Robert D. I ritton, Jr. Attorney f r Defendant Epstein EFTA00175235

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.: 08-CIV-80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. / PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby brings this First Amended Complaint against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and states as follows: 1. This is an action for damages in an amount in excess of $50,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 2. This First Amended Complaint is brought under a fictitious name in order to protect the identity of Plaintiff, Jane Doe, because this Complaint makes allegations of sexual assault and child abuse of a then minor. 3. At all times material to this cause of action, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. 4. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, was a resident of the State of New York. 5. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, had a residence located in Palm Beach County, Florida. EFTA00175236

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 3 of 18 12. Plaintiff Jane Doe was contacted by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein himself or or other unknown employees or assistants of Defendant Epstein on numerous occasions, and she was often times brought to Defendant Epstein's residence with the assistance of Defendant Epstein's assistants. 13. or other employees/assistants of Defendant Epstein would often arrange with the Yellow Cab cab company to take minor girls, including Jane Doe, to Defendant Epstein's house. 14. Once the then minor girl, including Plaintiff Jane Doe, arrived at Epstein's house, the assistants and employees left the then minor Plaintiff and other minor girls alone in a room at the defendant's mansion. Subsequently, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, himself would appear, remove his clothing, and direct the then minor Plaintiff to remove her clothing. He would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious, and sexual acts, including, but not limited to, of the then minor Plaintiffs sexual organs, using on the then minor Plaintiff, and the then minor Plaintiff. 15. Defendant Epstein traveled to his mansion in Palm Beach for the purpose of luring minor girls to his mansion to sexually abuse or batter them; he used the telephone to contact these minor girls for the purpose of coercing them into acts of prostitution and to enable himself to commit sexual battery against them and acts of lewdness in their presence, and he conspired with others, including his assistants and to further commit these acts and to avoid police detection. 3 EFTA00175237

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 5 of 18 Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, at all times material to this cause of action, knew and should have known of the plaintiff, Jane Doe's minority. 21. The above-described acts were perpetrated upon the person of the then minor Plaintiff regularly and on dozens of occasions. 22. In June 2008, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, entered pleas of "guilty" to various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution, for which Defendant Epstein was sentenced to 18 months incarceration in Palm Beach County jail to be followed by 12 months community control (house arrest). COUNT I Sexual Battery upon a Minor 23. The Plaintiff, Jane Doe, repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 21 above. 24. On numerous occasions, Defendant Epstein did in fact intentionally touch Plaintiff, Jane Doe, on her person against her will and/or without her legal consent. 25. Defendant Epstein battered her sexually, in that he touched her in intimate areas of her body and person in an offensive manner while she was a minor child, and therefore the touchings were without legal consent. 26. Defendant Epstein touched her in intimate areas of her body on dozens of occasions between approximately February 2003 and approximately June 2005. 27. The conduct described in this count constitutes battery against the person of the then minor Plaintiff. 5 EFTA00175238

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 7 of 18 federal offenses, the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Federal Government, wherein he acknowledged Plaintiff Jane Doe as a victim of certain criminal offenses he committed against Jane Doe. 32. The Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was in fact a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and the United States Government. 33. Specifically, Defendant Epstein: (a) knowingly conspired with others known and unknown to use a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females, including Plaintiff Jane Doe, to engage in prostitution, in violation of title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b). (b) knowingly and willfully conspired with others known (such as M ) and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with minors, including Plaintiff Jane Doe, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation fo Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); (c) used a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females, including Plaintiff Jane Doe, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); 7 EFTA00175239

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 9 of 18 COUNT III Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 35. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 22 above. 36. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's inappropriate sexual conduct towards the then minor Plaintiff was extreme and outrageous; under the circumstances, his conduct was outrageous and so extreme in degree that it should not be tolerated in a civilized community. 37. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein acted with the intent to cause severe emotional distress or with reckless disregard of the high probability of causing severe emotional distress upon the then minor Plaintiff. 38. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was well aware that Plaintiff was a minor child, and yet he continued to sexually abuse her, intentionally and recklessly causing Plaintiff to suffer extreme emotional distress. 39. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's intentional, deliberate and reckless conduct caused severe emotional distress to the Plaintiff, Jane Doe. Defendant, at the time he committed these numerous sexual assaults on Plaintiff, Jane Doe, had a specific intent to harm the then minor Plaintiff, and his conduct did so harm the Plaintiff. 40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's intentional and reckless conduct, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, has in the past suffered and in the future will continue to suffer severe emotional distress, physical injury, pain and suffering, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, controlling, manipulating and coercing her into a perverse and 9 EFTA00175240

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 11 of 18 violation of Florida Statutes §772.103(3)-(4), as further outlined in detail in the RICO statement filed with this court. 44. This enterprise was separate and distinct from Epstein himself and had a definite hierarchical structure. Epstein served informally but effectively as the leader, C.E.O, or "boss" of this organization, directing his underlings how to recruit and procure young girls for his sexual activities and when to bring the girls to his mansion. Epstein's key "lieutenant" in the organization was MI who served as both his scheduler and a recruiter/procurer of the girls. Marcinkova also served as a recruiter and helped Epstein satisfy his criminal sexual desires by, on occasion, directly participating in sexual abuse and prostitution of the minor girls. Epstein also used otherwise-legitimate business activities to help further the purpose of the criminal enterprise. These apparently legitimate activities provided "cover" for Epstein and his associates to commit the crimes. Epstein and his associates maintained the appearance of running an upstanding investment business, as well as other legitimate businesses with connections to modeling agencies and other powerful business and political people, to discourage the minor girls from reporting the abuse to law enforcement. 45. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein participated in this enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity in that he engaged in at least two incidents of criminal activity, as defined in Florida Statute 772.102 and as described below, that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission and are not isolated incidents. 46. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein engaged in criminal activity by committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit or soliciting, coercing or intimidating another 11 EFTA00175241

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 13 of 18 47. The criminal acts of Defendant Epstein occurred repeatedly over a substantial period of time and were not isolated events. 48. Under Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's plan, scheme, and enterprise, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, paid employees and underlings, including but not limited to to bring him minor girls to his Palm Beach mansion in order for the Defendant to solicit, induce, coerce, entice, compel or force such girls to engage in acts of prostitution and sexual misconduct with Defendant Epstein and sometimes , and to otherwise commit acts of sexual battery thereon. 49. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was the victim of Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's plan, scheme, and enterprise and was so injured by reason of his violations of the provisions of s. 772.104. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was called on the telephone by Defendant Epstein and other employees of his, including and transported to the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's residence, where she was placed in a room along with the Defendant, enticed to commit acts of prostitution, and had acts of sexual battery and sexual exploitation committed against her. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, conspired with his assistants and employees in order to accomplish their common motive or intent of seeking out, gaining access to, and exploiting minor children such as the Plaintiff, Jane Doe, in the aforementioned ways, and he further conspired with his employees, assistants and underlings to ensure that the crimes of this criminal enterprise were concealed or undetected by law enforcement. 50. After law enforcement began to detect the criminal activities of Defendant Epstein and the other persons involved in the criminal enterprise, the enterprise used resources and information to conceal the illegal activities of the enterprise, threaten the 13 EFTA00175242

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 15 of 18 COUNT V Cause of Action Pursuant to Florida Statute 796.09 Against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein 54. Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 22 above. 55. The allegations contained herein in Count II are a separate and distinct legal remedy. 56. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, was a wealthy and powerful man, and Plaintiff was an economically disadvantaged and impressionable minor. 57. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, used his vast wealth and power to coerce Plaintiff into prostitution and/or coerced her to remain in prostitution. 58. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, coerced Plaintiff into prostitution in one or more of the following ways: A. Domination of her mind and body through exploitive techniques; B. Inducement; C. Promise of greater financial rewards; D. Exploitation of a condition of developmental disability, cognitive limitation, affective disorder, and/or substance dependency; E. Exploitation of human needs for food, shelter or affection; F. Exploitation of underprivileged and vulnerable economic condition or situation; G. Use of a system of recruiting other similarly situated minor girls to further coerce and induce Plaintiff into the lifestyle of prostitution; and 15 EFTA00175243

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 17 of 18 Respectfully Submitted, Plaintiff, by One of Her Counsel, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone Facsimile Florida Bar 'o.: E-mail: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 17, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing is being served this day upon all counsel of record identified 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 counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards 17 EFTA00175244

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE #7 IN THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE IN THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO DISMISS SUA SPONTE, WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAWI Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein" or "Defendant"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby requests that this Court enter an order identifying in the style of this case the complete legal name of the Plaintiff, JANE DOE #7 ("JANE DOE"), to substitute her complete legal name in this case in place of "JANE DOE" and, equally Important, allowing Defendant to identify her in various subpoenas that Epstein must serve so Epstein can defend this case or, alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Entire Action Sua Sponte. In support, Mr. Epstein states as follows: 1 Several of the discovery responses attached to this Motion and to the companion "Motions to Identify" filed in other related matters are markedly different. Therefore, each requires the court's attention on an individual basis. 1 EFTA00175245

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 3 of 12 Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422, plaintiff claims entitlement to recover for ". . .personal injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages" ¶33, Am. Comp., DE 19. See also Exhibit "A", Interrogatory Response Number 9. Plaintiff also claims entitlement to "punitive damages" and "actual and compensatory damages." DE 19. 6. Epstein has a constitutional due process right to defend himself and to seek the production of information that will assist in his defense of the allegations in the Amended Complaint. In this case, Plaintiffs counsel objected to Epstein serving subpoenas on Plaintiff's treating physicians and other third parties. Thus, this motion seeks to identify JANE DOE in the style of this case, to identify JANE DOE in various third-party subpoenas for discovery purposes and, alternatively, to dismiss this entire action sua sponte. The undersigned's experience in "Jane Doe" lawsuits is that once a Plaintiff is identified, other individuals come forward in the discovery phase with information which often directly contradicts allegations as to the events and damages. For instance, witnesses may testify that Plaintiff was paid by others for similar sexual acts she claims Mr. Epstein forced upon her or that she willingly participated in certain act(s) that would negate or lessen her damages. This goes directly to Plaintiff's damage claim. 7. Likewise, subpoenas must be issued to third-party treaters and current and former employers, and those subpoenas will seek to obtain records related directly to Plaintiff's claims and her damages (i.e., her claim for severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional 3 EFTA00175246

Cse 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 5 of 12 is not the case when a Plaintiff places her mental, emotional, psychological and physical condition at issue. 9. Moreover, when an order from the court is attached to the Subpoena, treaters and other third parties produce the records and show up to the depositions with the records requested because the deponent knows what to bring by virtue of knowing the identity of the Plaintiff. 10. Epstein's counsel intends to serve and depose witnesses duces tecum. If Epstein is not permitted to identify JANE DOE, how will any deponent know who the parties are and what to bring to the deposition pursuant to the duces tecum? Further, how will Epstein be able to defend the claims. Just like the Plaintiff, Epstein is entitled to due process. 11. While it is within the sound discretion of this court to allow a party to proceed anonymously, Plaintiff should not attempt to utilize that discretion as a shield from legitimate and necessary discovery. Epstein has a fundamental due process right to conduct discovery. b. Motion To Identify JANE DOE In Style Of This Case 12. As discussed below, Epstein has fundamental due process right to defend himself in this civil litigation. While JANE DOE travels under a pseudonym, various newspaper articles identifying Epstein have been released discussing the alleged claims against him. Allowing JANE DOE to litigate this matter under a pseudonym is preventing Epstein from defending this suit including, but not limited to, preventing him from locating individuals that may have information about this lawsuit and information about JANE DOE that may 5 EFTA00175247

Ca 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 7 of 12 Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d at 323. Plaintiff does not fall under any of the factors. Moreover, even if she did meet one of the factors, "[t]he fact that [a] Doe [Plaintiff] may suffer some personal embarrassment, standing alone, does not require the granting of a request to proceed under a pseudonym." Id; see also Doe v, Rostker, 89 F.R.D. 159 (N.D. Calif. 1981). Any substantial privacy interests JANE DOE has must outweigh the customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness to judicial proceedings. Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d at 323; Poe v. Bergstron, 2009 WL 528623 (C.A.9(Or.))(denying request to proceed anonymously in civil action by Plaintiff where Plaintiffs arrest, prosecution and acquittal were matters of public record). 14. In Sweetland v. State, 535 So.2d 646 (Fla. 18t DCA 1988), the court reasoned that the purpose of discovery is to eliminate the likelihood of surprise and to insure a fair opportunity to prepare for trial. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1); see also Surf Drugs. Inc., v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. 1970)(stating that the rules of discovery should be afforded broad and liberal treatment to effectuate their purpose), citing., Hickman v. Taylor 329 U.S. 495, 501, 507 (1947). 15. Next, the right to go to court to resolve disputes is a fundamental right. D.R. Lakes, Inc. v. Brandsmart U.S.A. of West Palm Beach, 819 So.2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). All litigants are afforded an equal opportunity. Lingle v. Dion, 776 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The Florida Constitution establishes the right commonly known as access to courts. Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So.2d 521 (Fla. 7 EFTA00175248

6se 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 9 of 12 others, diminished sense of future prospects, corruption of morals, distorted and disrupted development, loss of normal adolescent ideals." (Emphasis Added). W. Epstein is also entitled to know, among other things, whether she had any physical complaints or whether there was ever any evidence of physical battery on JANE DOE's body from the acts she complains of in the Amended Complaint. The need to serve third-party subpoenas on medical doctors is a basic discovery need related to the claims alleged by JANE DOE for which Plaintiff's counsel refuses to compromise. Balas v. Ruzzo 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998)(discoverability of Plaintiff's history of sexual activity is relevant to damages); United States v. Bear Stops 997 F.2d 451 (81h Cir. 1993)(deals with "admissibility of other acts of sexual abuse by individuals other than the defendant to explain why a victim of abuse exhibited behavioral manifestations of a sexually abused child.") If Plaintiff saw a psychologist or other physician during or after the time periods she claims she was assaulted by Epstein but either did not discuss or did discuss the incidents (or lack thereof) would be directly relevant to her damage claims. Plaintiff seeks physical and emotional/mental personal injury type damages, and the Epstein must conduct his own discovery thereon. See supra. No valid discovery objections or exemptions exist preventing necessary and reasonable discovery. To hold otherwise prevents Mr. Epstein from preparing and defending this matter. 19. In defending this lawsuit, Mr. Epstein should be permitted broad discovery, whether admissible at trial or not. Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26 provides, in pertinent part, that "parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not 9 EFTA00175249

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 11 of 12 would ultimately result in reversible error at any trial. II. Conclusion 22. Epstein requests the following relief: a. That JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the style of this case; b. That Epstein be granted leave to identify JANE DOE by her legal name In Third-Party Subpoenas (but not file them in Court or, if required, in a redacted form); and c. That, on an alternative basis, this court dismiss this action Sua Sponte until such time as JANE DOE Identifies herself in the style of this matter. Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D.at 163. WHEREFORE, Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, respectfully requests that this Court enter said order granting the relief requested above, and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem jus By: ROBERT CRI TON, JR., ESQ. 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 day of gal , 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 60 Fax: ssmasexa useattornev.com EFTA00175250

CM/ECF, Live Database - flsd Page 1 of 14 LRJ, MEDREQ, REF_DISCOV U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson Lead case: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Member case: (View Member Case) Case: 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Cause: 28:1391 Personal Injury Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 7 Date Filed: 09/10/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 710 Labor: Fair Standards Jurisdiction: Federal Question represented by Adam 1). Horowitz Mermelstein & Horowitz PA 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami FL 33160 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jeffrey Marc Herman Herman & Mermelstein 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami FL 33160 Fax: 931-0877 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stuart S. Mermelstein Mermelstein & Horowitz PA 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 https://eculsd.useourts.govicgi-bin/D1ctRpt.pl?667278296697325-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175251

ONECF Live Database - flsd Page 2 of 14 Miami FL 33160 V. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Fax: 931-0877 Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Robert Deweese Critton , Jr. Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Amiens United States of America represented by Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michael James Pike Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Fax: 51 -3148 Email: ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED United States Attorney's Office 500 East Broward Blvd 7th Floor derdale , FL 33394 , ext. 3546 Fax: 356-7336 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED https://ectflsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pr667278296697325-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175252

CWECF, Live Database - flsd Page 3 of 14 Date Filed # that Docket Text 09/10/2008 1 F. 463.9 KB COMPLAINT against Jeffrey Epstein Filing fee $ 350.00. Receipt#: 544158, filed by Jane Doe No. 7.(vt) (Entered: 09/10/2008) 09/10/2008 2 r 99.1 KB Summons Issued as to Jeffrey Epstein. (vt) (Entered: 09/10/2008) 09/15/2008 3 r 130.8 KB NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Robert Deweese Critton, Jr on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 09/15/2008) 10/03/2008 4 r 82.8 KB ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE Executed as to 2 Summons Issued, 1 Complaint Acknowledgement filed by Jane Doe No. 7. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/03/2008) 10/03/2008 5 fi 26.1 Ica NOTICE of Striking 4 Acknowledgment of Service filed by Jane Doe No. 7 by Jane Doe No. 7 (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/03/2008) 10/03/2008 6 r 82.8 KB SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed by Jane Doe No. 7. Jeffrey Epstein served on 9/23/2008, answer due 10/14/2008. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/03/2008) 10/14/2008 7 r 1.1 MB Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint, MOTION for More Definite Statement by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 10/31/2008 (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 10/14/2008) 10/20/2008 8 r 46.3 KB ORDER OF TRANSFER. Case is transferred to Judge Kenneth A. Marra for all further proceedings. Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 10/17/2008 and Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 10/17/2008. (jdo) (Entered: 10/20/2008) 10/21/2008 9 r 33,9 KB CERTIFICATION AND ORDER OF TRANSFER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Case Transferred to Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson as referral judge in case. Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins no longer assigned as referral judge(s) in case. Signed by Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins on 10/21/08. (Iwl) (Entered: 10/21/2008) 10/21/2008 Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson added per Order at DE 9 . (bb) (Entered: 10/28/2008) 10/22/2008 io r 63.6 KB Order Requiring Counsel to Confer and File Joint Scheduling Report. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 10/21/2008. (ir) (Entered: 10/22/2008) 10/31/2008 II r 161.5 KB MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 7 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by Jane Doe No. 7. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/31/2008) 11/10/2008 12 r RESPONSE/REPLY to 11 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?667278296697325-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175253

CMJECV- Live Database - flsd Page 4 of 14 290.8 1CB Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 11/10/2008) 12/17/2008 13. r 2.1 JAB NOTICE of Filing Discovery: Joint Scheduling and Discovery Report by Jeffrey Epstein.(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 12/17/2008) 12/17/2008 15 JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT - Rule 16.1. See image DE 13 (1k) (Entered: 12/18/2008) 12/18/2008 14 r 82.5 " SCHEDULING ORDER: Jury Trial set for 2/8/2010 09:00 AM in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Kenneth A. Marra., Calendar Call set for 2/5/2010 10:00 AM in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Kenneth A. Main., Amended Pleadings due by 2/2/2009., Discovery due by 10/5/2009., Dispositive Motions due by 10/23/2009. ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson for Discovery Proceedings, ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation. 15 days to appoint mediator. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 12/17/2008. (ir) (Entered: 12/18/2008) 12/18/2008 16 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 13 Notice of Filing Discovery filed by Jeffrey Epstein. ERROR - Wrong Event Selected; Correction - Redocketed by Clerk as Scheduling Report-Rule 26 (f) B . Instruction to Filer - In the future, please select the proper event. It is not necessary to refile this document. (1k) (Entered: 12/18/2008) 02/12/2009 17 r tom KB OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1 Motion to Dismiss; denying 7 Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 2/12/2009. (ir) (Entered: 02/12/2009) 02/23/2009 18 r 21.1 KB NOTICE by Jane Doe No. 7 of Change of Name of Plaintiffs Counsel (Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 02/23/2009) 02/27/2009 19 r 35.8 KB AMENDED COMPLAINT, filed by Jane Doe No. 7.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 02/27/2009) 03/04/2009 20 r 376.1 KB Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 12 Amended Complaint with proposed Order by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 03/04/2009) 03/05/2009 21 ENDORSED ORDER granting 20 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint. Jeffrey Epstein response due 4/3/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 3/5/2009. (ir) (Entered: 03/05/2009) 03/25/2009, 22 r 2.2 MB Defendant's MOTION to Stay re 19 Amended Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 4/13/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 03/25/2009) 03/27/2009 23 MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, https://eculsd.uscourts.govicgi-bitilDktRpt.p17667278296697325-L_801_0-11 6/10/2009 EFTA00175254

CIWECF r Live Database - flsd Page 5 of 14 r 435.3 KB and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support by Jane Doe No. 7. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 03/27/2009) 03/27/2009 24 MOTION to Consolidate Cases for purposes of discovery ( Responses due by 4/13/2009), MOTION to Quash by Jane Doe No. 7. See image DE 23 (1k) (Entered: 03/30/2009) 03/30/2009 25 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 23 MOTION for Protective Order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support filed by Jane Doe No. 7. ERROR - Motion with Multiple Reliefs flied as One Relief; Correction - Additional relief(s) 24 MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION CONSOLIDATE CASES docketed by Clerk. Instruction to filer - In the future, please select all applicable reliefs. It is not necessary to refile this document. (1k) (Entered: 03/30/2009) 04/02/2009 26 r 2.4 "s Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 4/20/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Critton, Robert) (Entered: 04/02/2009) 04/02/2009 27 r 2.0 MB Defendant's MOTION to Compel Answers to 1st Interrogs by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 4/20/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit CXCritton, Robert) (Entered: 04/02/2009) 04/02/2009 28 r 36" ics Defendant's ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint (Second) by Jeffrey Epstein.(Critton, Robert) (Entered: 04/02/2009) 04/06/2009 29 r 140.5 KB Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 24 MOTION to Consolidate Cases MOTION to Quash, 21 MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 04/06/2009) 04/07/2009 30 ENDORSED ORDER granting 29 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re 24 MOTION to Consolidate Cases MOTION to Quash, 23 MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support. Responses due by 4/13/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 4/7/2009. (ir) (Entered: 04/07/2009) 04/10/2009 31 r 137 KB 4 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 30 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer, 23 MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support (Amended) by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 04/10/2009) https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?667278296697325-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175255

CM/ECF,- Live Database - flsd Page 6 of 14 04/13/2009 32 ENDORSED ORDER granting (73) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (66 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support in case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM; granting (65) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (66 in 9:08-cv-80119- KAM) MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support in case 9:08- cv-80232-ICAM; granting (80) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (66 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support in case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM; granting (31) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (66 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support in case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM in case 9:08- cv-80119-KAM. Responses due by 4/16/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 4/13/2009. (ir) (Entered: 04/13/2009) 04/13/2009 33 r 41.6 KB Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response /Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action by Jane Doe No. 7. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 04/13/2009) 04/14/2009 34 ENDORSED ORDER granting (75) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint in case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM; granting (67) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint in case 9:08-cv- 80232-KAM; granting (82) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint in case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM; granting (73) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendants MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint in case 9:08-cv- 80381-KAM; granting (33) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint in case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM; granting (27) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint in case 9:08-cv- 80994-KAM in case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM. ( Responses due by 4/23/2009). Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 4/14/2009. (ir) (Entered: 04/14/2009) 04/16/2009 35 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 23 MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of https://ectflsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?667278296697325-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175256

CWECF Live Database - flsd Page 7 of 14 r 138.8 KB Jane Doe No. 4, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes olDiscovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) Modified on 4/20/2009 (Is). (Entered: 04/16/2009) 04/17/2009 36 ENDORSED ORDER granting (77) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (66 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support in case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM; granting (84) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (66 in 9:08-cv-80119- KAM) MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support in case 9:08- cv-80380-KAM; granting (35) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (66 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support in case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM in case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM. ( Responses due by 4/24/2009). Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 4/17/2009. (ir) (Entered: 04/17/2009) 04/17/2009 37 n 339.6 KB RESPONSE to Motion re 23 MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support filed by Jeffrey Epstein. Replies due by 4/27/2009. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 04/17/2009) 04/17/2009 38 r 42.2 KB Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 27 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Answers to 1st Interrogs, 26 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP by Jane Doe No. 7. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 04/17/2009) 04/23/2009 39 r 43.6 KB RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 Defendant's MOTION to Stay re 19 Amended Complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 7. (Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 04/23/2009) 04/27/2009 40 r 50.3 ica ORDER Granting 38 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum in Opposition to 27 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Answers to 1st Interrogatories, 26 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to First Request to Produce. Response due by 4/29/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson on 4/27/2009. (sa) (Entered: 04/27/2009) 04/27/2009 41 r 3j.j: MEMORANDUM in Support re 23 MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support by Jane Doe No. 7. (Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 04/27/2009) https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.govicgi-bin/DIctRpt.p17667278296697325-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175257

CIVWECF Live Database - flsd Page 8 of 14 04/29/2009 42 r 60.2 KB ORDER granting 23 Motion for Protective Order and Consolidating Cases For Purposes of Discovery. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 4/28/2009. (cqs) (Entered: 04/29/2009) 04/29/2009 43 r 42.3 KB Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 27 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Answers to 1st lnterrogs, 26 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP by Jane Doe No. 7. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 04/29/2009) 05/04/2009 44 r 278.6 KB MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 42 Order on Motion for Protective Order by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/05/2009 45 r 261.1 KB RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/05/2009) 05/05/2009 46 r sts KB Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply as to 39 Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/05/2009) 05/05/2009 48 MOTION for clarification 42 Order on Motion for Protective Order by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 5/22/2009. See image DE 45 (1k) (Entered: 05/06/2009) 05/06/2009 47 ENDORSED ORDER granting (89) Motion for Extension of Time to Reply re (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint; granting (81) Motion for Extension of Time to Reply re (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint in case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM; granting (97) Motion for Extension of Time to Reply re (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint in case 9:08-cv-80380- KAM; granting (82) Motion for Extension of Time to Reply re (65 in 9:08- cv-80119-ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint in case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM; granting (46) Motion for Extension of Time to Reply re (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint in case 9:08-cv-80993- KAM; granting (37) Motion for Extension of Time to Reply re (65 in 9:08- cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint in case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM in case 9:08-ov-80119-KAM. ( Replies due by 5/20/2009.). Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/5/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/06/2009) 05/06/2009 49 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 45 Response to Order to Show Cause filed by Jeffrey Epstein. ERROR - Two or More Document Events Filed as One; Correction - Additional event(s) 48 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION docketed by Clerk. Instruction to Filer - In the future, please select all applicable events. It is not necessary to refile https://ecf.flsd.useourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17667278296697325-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175258

CM/ECF Live Database - flsd Page 9 of 14 this document. (1k) (Entered: 05/06/2009) 05/06/2009 50 r 37.2 KB RESPONSE in Opposition re 27 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Answers to 1st Interrogs and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses filed by Jane Doe No. 7. (Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 05/06/2009) 05/06/2009 51 r 340A KB RESPONSE in Opposition re 26 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP , Overrule Objections and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses filed by Jane Doe No. 7. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 05/06/2009) 05/07/2009 52 r 84B 0.8 Defendant's MOTION to Compel and/or Identift Doe #7 in the Style of this Case and in Third-Party Subpoenas by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 5/26/2009 (Attachments: # .1_ Exhibit A)(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/07/2009) 05/07/2009 53 Alternative MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 5/26/2009. See image DE 52 (1k) (Entered: 05/08/2009) 05/08/2009 54 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 52 Defendant's MOTION to Compel and/or Identifr Doe #7 in the Style of this Case and in Third-Party Subpoenas filed by Jeffrey Epstein. ERROR - Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief; Correction - Additional relief(s) 53 MOTION TO DISMISS docketed by Clerk. Instruction to filer - In the future, please select all applicable reliefs. It is not necessary to refile this document. (1k) (Entered: 05/08/2009) 05/11/2009 55 r 203.0 KB Defendant's MOTION Require Plaintiff to Use Proper Case Style by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/11/2009) 05/13/2009 56 r 400.3 M3 RESPONSE/REPLY to 39 Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/13/2009) 05/14/2009 Cases associated. (dg) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 57 r 1°63 Ica ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES. Hereinafter all motions and other court filings that relate to discovery and all procedural motions that relate to multiple cases shall be styled with all of the case names and numbers and shall be filed in Case No. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. (ir) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 58 F :43 ORDER REQUESTING UNITED STATES PROVIDE POSITION TO MOTION TO STAY. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Motion to Stay DE 51) Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (ir) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 59 ORDER denying as moot 48 Motion for Clarification; denying as moot 55 https://ectflsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DIctRpt.pl?667278296697325-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175259

C14/ECF, Live Database - flsd Page 10 of 14 Motion ; denying as moot 24 Motion to Consolidate Cases; denying as moot 24 Motion to Quash. See Order consolidating cases.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. (Ic3) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 60 ORDER terminating 52 Motion to Compel; terminating 53 Motion to Dismiss; terminating 22 Motion to Stay. See Order consolidating cases. See procedural motions pending: DE 65 and DE 91 in 08-80119.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/18/2009 61 r 174.3 KB Defendants MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply as to (39 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM) Response in Opposition to Motion, (40 in 9:08-cv- 80994-KAM) Response in Opposition to Motion by Jeffrey Epstein. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/18/2009) 05/19/2009 62 r MB 0.8 Defendant's MOTION to Strike Cases from Current Trial Docket by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 6/8/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/19/2009) 05/20/2009 63 ORDER terminating (93) Motion to Strike ; terminating (94) Motion in case 9:08-cv-80232-KAM; terminating (110) Motion to Strike ; terminating (111) Motion in case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM; terminating (95) Motion to Strike ; terminating (96) Motion in case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM; terminating (90) Motion to Strike ; terminating (91) Motion in case 9:08-cv-80811- KAM; terminating (62) Motion to Strike in case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM; terminating (62) Motion to Strike in case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM; terminating (50) Motion to Strike in case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/20/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/20/2009 64 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 62 MOTION to Strike filed by Jeffrey Epstein. Error - Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief;. Instruction to filer - In the future, please select all applicable reliefs. It is not necessary to refile this document. (Is) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/20/2009 65 r 363.1 KB NOTICE by to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Comp gi Or Ident Identify . of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Oils in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identifri=. in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, Or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponte, With Inorporated Memorandum of Law Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Hill, Jack) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/20/2009 66 ORDER S G in all Epstein cases EXCEPT case no. 08-80119: Notice by of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to Epstein's Motion to Compel and/or Identify. This Notice should only be filed in 08-80119, not in all of the Epstein cases.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/20/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (1c3) https://edflsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.pl?667278296697325-1.4_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175260

CM/ECF'. Live Database - flsd Page 11 of 14 (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/21/2009 67 r 3KB 0.1 Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) by Jane Doe No. 6, Jane Doe No. 7, Jane Doe, Jane Doe No. 5, Jane Doe No. 4, Jane Doe No. 3. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 05/21/2009) 05/22/2009 68 ORDER terminating (100) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond in case 9:08-cv-80232-ICAM; terminating (117) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond in case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM; terminating (101) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond in case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM; terminating (67) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond in case 9:08-cv-80993- KAM; terminating (54) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond in case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM. The attorneys are instructed again to ONLY file this type of motion in case no. 08-80119. See Order consolidating cases for details.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/22/2009. (Ic3) (Entered: 05/22/2009) 05/22/2009 69 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 65 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by .. Error - Incorrect Document Link/No Link;. Instruction to filer - In the future, please link the document to the proper entry. It is not necessary to refile this document. (Is) (Entered: 05/22/2009) 05/27/2009 70 r no KB NOTICE by Jane Doe re (111 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (91 in 9:08-cv- 80119-ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90)Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (91 in 9:08-cv- 80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 05/27/2009) 05/28/2009 71 ORDER STRIKING Notice by Jane Doe in all Epstein cases EXCEPT in case 08-80119. This Notice should only be filed in 08-80119, not in all of the Epstein cases... Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/28/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/28/2009) 05/29/2009 72 r, 11.6 KB NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by on behalf of Ilgilssaiftuaf America Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. MM Me (Entered: 05/29/2009) , 05/29/2009 73 RESPONSE to Motion re (72 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (62) Amended Complaint, (57 in 9:08-cv-80232- KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (50) Amended Complaint, (24 in https://ectflsd.useourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRptpl?667278296697325-1,_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175261

CM/Eclz7 Live Database - flsd Page 12 of 14 r 373 KB 9:08-cv-80893-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (1) Complaint, (23 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (18) Amended Complaint, (22 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (19) Amended Complaint, (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint, (68 in 9:08-cv-80381- ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (60) Amended Complaint, (51 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (40) Amended Complaint and or Continue Action Filed Pursuant to Court's Order Requesting Government's Position filed by United States of America. t heAL6/8/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. MM) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 74 r 43.3 KB RESPONSE in Opposition re (90 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identify Doe in Style of Case and in Third-Party Subpoenas, (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 75 ORDER STRIKING (124 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, 105 in 9:08-cv-80811- KAM, 74 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM, 72 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 106 in 9:08- cv-80232-ICAM, 123 in 9:08-cv-80380-ICAM, 35 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 25 in 9:09-cv-80469-ICAM, 60 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 22 in 9:09-cv- 80656-KAM, 107 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM) Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101 DO NOT FILE IN EVERY EPSTEIN CASE. SEE ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/29/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08- cv-80119-KAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 76 r 24.5 KB MOTION for Leave to File UNDER SEAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO UNSEAL THE NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 77 r, 19.5 KB MOTION for Hearing MOTION TO RESCHEDULE HEARING by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Josefsberg, Robert) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 06/01/2009 78 ORDER STRIKING (28 in 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, 126 in 9:08-cv-80380- KAM, 109 in 9:08-cv-80232-KAM, 25 in 9:09-cv-80656-ICAM, 77 in 9:08- cv-80993-KAM, 38 in 9:09-cv-80591-ICAM, 110 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM, 63 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 75 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 108 in 9:08-cv- 80811-KAM) Motion to Continue Hearing filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101, (76 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM, 109 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM, 108 in 9:08-cv-80232-KAM, 62 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 125 in 9:08-cv- 80380-KAM, 74 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 24 in 9:09-cv-80656-KAM, 37 in hrips://ecf.flsd.uscourts.goviegi-bin/DktRptpl?667278296697325-L 801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175262

CM/ECF Live Database - flsd Page 13 of 14 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 107 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM, 27 in 9:09-cv-80469- ICAM) Motion for Leave to File, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. THESE DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE FILED ONLY IN 08-80119. SEE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/1/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 06/01/2009) 06/01/2009 Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Calendar Call set for 5/28/2010 10:00 AM in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Kenneth A. Marra., Jury Trial set for 6/1/2010 09:00 AM in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Kenneth A. Marra., Discovery due by 12/11/2009., Dispositive Motions due by 1/8/2010. (ir) (Entered: 06/01/2009) 06/04/2009 79 r 349.0 KB REPLY to Response to Motion re (113 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Plaintiffs MOTION Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No- Contact Order Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Reply to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Response to Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for a No-Contact Order filed by Jane Doe No. 101, Jane Doe No. 102. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 06/04/2009 80 ORDER STRIKING (112 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM, 111 in 9:08-cv-80232- KAM, 136 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, 111 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM, 128 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM, 65 in 9:08-cv-80994-ICAM, 79 in 9:08-cv-80893- KAM, 42 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 27 in 9:09-cv-80656-KAM, 32 in 9:09- cv-80469-ICAM, 79 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM) Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101 Document stricken for failure to follow Court's orders. DO NOT FILE A DOCUMENT IN EVERY EPSTEIN CASE if it is to be filed only in 08-80119. See Case Management Order and contact CM/ECF Support for assistance in proper filing.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/4/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119- ICAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 06/08/2009 81 r 3.8 MB RESPONSE to Motion re (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) filed by Jane Doe. Replies due by 6/18/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/08/2009 82 r mil l NOTICE by Jane Doe re (113 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Plaintiffs MOTION Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No- Contact Order -Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 Notice of Joinder Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/09/2009 83 r Ma Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 28 Answer to Amended Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 6/26/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Text of Proposed Order OrderXPike, Michael) (Entered: 06/09/2009) https://ecf.flsd.useourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.pl?667278296697325-L_801 0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175263

CWEC IF T Live Database - flsd Page 14 of 14 06/10/2009 84 ENDORSED ORDER granting 83 Motion to Amend affirmative defenses. Defendant must separately file affirmative defenses. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/9/2009. (ir) (Entered: 06/10/2009) 06/10/2009 85 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 82 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Jane Doe. Error - Wrong Event Selected;. Instruction to Filer - In the future, please select the proper event, i.e. Notice of Adoption. It is not necessary to refile this document. (Is) (Entered: 06/10/2009) 06/10/2009 86 r o.s MB AMENDED DOCUMENT by Jeffrey Epstein. Amendment to 19 Amended Complaint, 28 Answer to Amended Complaint. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 06/10/2009) or View Selected Download Selected Total filesize of selected documents (MB):1 Maximum filesize allowed (MB): 10 PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 06/10/2009 14:04:28 PACER Login: du4480 Client Code: Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 9:08-cv-809931 KAM Billable Pages: 9 Cost: 0.72 https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17667278296697325-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175264

Case'9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 RIPON 1 105 0.1 ELECTRONIC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Mar. 24, 2009 STEVEN m.LARim0RE CLERK N.S. DIST. CT. s.o. Or FLA.• MIAMI 09-80469-Civ-RYSKAMPNITUNAC JANE DOE II ) CASE NO.: ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) an P ) and ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff, JANE DOE II, hereby sues JEFFREY EPSTEIN and and states: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interests, costs and attorney's fees. 3. Venue is proper in this Court as all acts occurred in Palm Beach County and all parties reside and/or do business herein. PARTIES 4. Ms. DOE II is a natural person residing in Palm Beach County, Florida. During the events giving rise to this claim, she was a minor but has now reached majority. She files this suit under a pseudonym to protect her privacy because the acts alleged occurred while she was a minor. SCANNED I oil EFTA00175265

O9-.110: 199sLiwERYSKIA rtIRLIATE N A a .red on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 3 of 5 • 11. From about June, 2003 until on or about February, 2005, Defendants EPSTEIN anal persuaded, induced, or enticed the Plaintiff to come to Defendant EPSTEIN's home and provide Defendant EPSTEIN with "massages". which escalated into sexual encounters between Defendant EPSTEIN and the Plaintiff designed to fulfill his unnatural sexual desires for young women or even younger girls who were minors. These acts included Defendant EPSTEIN's request that he wanted the encounter to be like a "porn video." Defendant EPSTEIN would script lines for the Plaintiff to say, including calling out his name and requesting that he perform a certain sexual act "harder,"while he touched the Plaintiffs aor with alternately, he would min the presence of the Plaintiff after demanding her to disrobe and walk in front of him in provocative sexual poses. Defendant EPSTEIN would pay the Plaintiff a fee of $200 on each occasion after he while in the presence of the Plaintiff. 12. Defendant EPSTEIN touched Plaintiffs , or Plaintiffs on multiple occasions, during the time that Plaintiff was a minor, causing personal injury to her. 13. In violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422(b),Defendants EPSTEIN and knowingly persuaded, induced, or enticed the Plaintiff to engage in acts of prostitution, when the Plaintiff was under the age of 18, approximately on or about the following dates that Plaintiff can document based on payments received: 6/16/03, 7/2/03, 4/9/04, 6/7/04, 7/30/04, 8/30/04,10/9/04, 10/12/04, 10/30/04 and 11/9/04. In addition, Plaintiff believes that there were as many as 10 to 20 other occasions during this time frame that Defendant EPSTEIN solicited her and procured her to perform prostitution services, all during the time that she was a minor. 3 3 of EFTA00175266

09-80As69.aiMr-ROYSOAMPAY3MINAC Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/200 FILEAN 51bP5 S. ELECTnoW ims 44 Mao. 204/ CIVIL COVER SHEET ThelS 44 civil coyeuheet and the information omnibus' herein neither resdne nor supplement the ft/Mgand service of pleadings or other papers by local mks of coon. This Ranh approved by the Judicial Conference of the UnitedSrates in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCT/OHS ON THE REVERSE OP THE reit NOTICE: Attorneys MUST Indicate All Re-filed I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS JANE DOE II (b) County of Residence of Finn Listed Plaintiff PALM BEACH (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) Al0301tri IMRE N464. Addles.. M TeNple444 Neraber) GARCIA LAW FIRM, P.A. 224 DATURA STREETM SUITE 900 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 JEFFREY EPSTEIN ANC I KELL Mar. 24, 2009 STEVEN M. LARIMORE CLERK U.S• DIET. GT. 5.0. OF FLA. • MIAMI County of Residence of First Listed Defendant PALM BEACH (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT LAND INVOLVED. /1110010). OFE444310 ROBERT D. CRITTON, ESQ. JACK A. GOLDBEROER, ESQ. O 141) Check Canty Whom ACA1011M03* 0 MIAMI. DADE 3 Mumma 0 IROWARD tO PALM SEAN 3 MARTIN 0 ST. LUCIE 3 INDIAN RIVER 1 OKEECHOBEE HIGHLANDS II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Plan en cr loom snow O I U.S. 00Mtnalent Vb3 Fodefel Queellea Plaintiff 44 00Velalnent Net • Poly) c/ 1 U.S. Dawrnmenl I 1 D1vemhy (I West ChitcroMp of rein In IMm III 0111.41'" 09 CV geoL)69 Ate III. C TIZENSIIIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTI ES(png. 'Cr in 0.{ On lot ?Wolff rot DI/malty Cam Oaily) osad Om Him for Defenden0 PTF OEr ITF DEF CIOan Of VIII AMC 0 I 0 I Incorpotated or Principal flee 3 4 04 of Badman In This Sale C Mien of An cam Stale 0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Pritcoal Plate 3 5 of fliameas la Another Mole Ckiirc 01 S objec i of a 0 n rOlOilnNnlon 1 6 1 Co array IV. NATURE OF SUIT 4lnt Ser XTh Qt4 BO* 1 CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY 11ANKRIIPTCY OTHER STATUTES I 3 110 Inatome 0 120 Meilne O 130 Millet AO 3 140 Nesoilable lastrument CI ISO Recovery a Oreepaymest A EAROICONPIAI of Migmeni S I SI MOEN, Alt 0131 Recowty of Dersulted student LAO. leael Enemas) O 13) Recovery of0worpsyrnenl of Vciaran's Benefits O 160 Sloe Ittolden' Suits 1 190 Orbit Conueo 0 193 Ce nom Paothon Liability 3 196 Fraachlor PERSONA L INJURY 0 MO Alephae 3 )13 Alephise ***** ct 1.1014117 0320 Amish. Label A SI 44444 0 330 Federal Employer.' Llehllity 0 140 Mmiso 0 343 Metioe Note; Mainly 0 330 Moine VOW* 0 333 Moser Vehicle 1046•0 LIMINry II )60 0 dam Penomil 14 40 PERSONAL INJURY 0 362 Poreoftel Injury • M ed. 14•Ipeseibm IT 363 Personellofury • Peeducl LIONly 0 MI AsMoNs !Mad Injury hodocl Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 0 370 Other fend 0 371 Troth la LetdIM 3 310 Oast/snood PlOpetty Dunn 0 MI Property Demote MotoI Lisbilky 0 610 ',Pinhole 0 620 Oaer Food A; Drat 0 613 Dros Related Se Hum of Formeety )1 USC III 0 630 LIquot Lan 0 440 R.R. • Mask 0 630 Maim Rqs. 0 660 OecuPallooel StRity/Holth 0 690 004f 002 K190124 ESC 124 11 423 WIthdrsool 24 USC 01 0 400 Slat Realmoitionmem 3 410 AnIlifint 0 4)0 gaols and Benlcog 0 00Comment 0 444 Doperteilon 0 4/0 Racketeer Inlloroce. and COHEN Omenhations 3 4141Contoner Credit 0 4441C414./Set TV / III Sako6.3 Sankt 040 SmesekinCommodiCom Emboss. 3 03 ConnateChilliest 12 USC 1410 0 44400w. Sletoloiy Atibas 3 $91 Asiicolvesal Am 0 MIT Ecoomek Shibilismim AO 0 493 EnaOninISIIII A1•1100 2 IN Energy A Botafton A ei 3 MI PreSom of Infonossioe AO 0 140 ApRelll of Fee Dmenekstion 1.1444rE440 Muss to Auk* 0 1111Commutionality of Slew Simms I PROPERTY RIGHTS 0 00 Coorleaes 0 041Faleat 0 SMITrataork LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 3 710 441e taw Santa* Acl 0 720 laboeiMpel. Radom 0 730 labotIMEentlepoelin$ a Damloswe Am 0 710 114114.3. Leber All 0 790 004/ labor Litigation 0 791 Cool. Eel. Inc. Staudt) Acl 0 $61 NIA ()363M 0442 Meek Lam (923) 0463 DIMC/DIWW (403(p)) 0 064 010 Mk XVI 0 503 est W(n1 i REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS rations PETITIONS FEDERAL TAX SUITS 3210 Lead C 004e41104 MO 0 220 FDICel ttttt 1 2)0 Rent Lam A Efroomat 0 240 Tone M L eed 0 245 Tort Prod& LlabIllry 3 290 Al Otheir Real Properly 0 441 Voting 0 442 Isoploymeat 0 443 llotoMM Aesommodillone 0 444 Wolfs,* .. 443 Anil. fDisabllitioe • la w taistramt 0 446 ARM. w/DIseb0200; i Other 0 440 Other Clod R Mho 0 310 Modem en %Mem Soong Hahne Cogent 0 3)0 Omen! 0 035 Dolk Ponaky 0 340 Mandamus A 06.0 0 030 era, S wis 0 333 Pelson Condition 0 III Tame N.S. Pleloillf Or ElsfeadaM) 0 III IRS—Thh4 Pluly 26 USC 7609 I •MM7C 0 anon 462 Nueoliniko 0 Applkailon 0 463 Hams ColowoAllon De41019 0 A42 Other Iminigniloo V. ORIGIN (Ileco a —X' In Om Box Omit) fT / Original 7 2 Removed from Ill 3 Re.liled. Proceeding State Cain Dee VI below) O 4 Reinstated Or O Reopened Trans erred from S another district " 6 (speedy) VI. RELATED/RE-FILED CASE(S). (Set Instemiloss snood rim): a) Re-filed Case OYES ONO JUDGE Multidistriet O 7 Litigation b) Related Caeca (WES ONO DOCKET NUMBER 9 :at -cv -2o)(A-Icissi Appeal to District Jute from Magistrate Martian VII. CAUSE OF ACTION CI c the US. Civil Statute under which you am fdmg and Write a Strict &Inerrant of Cause (Do not cite larbdiellonal statutes °Mos diversity): IS US.C. §2422(b) LENGTH OF TRIAL via days estimated (for both sides to ity wins case) VIII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: CHECK WM A CLASS Amor,' UNDER 23 ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE 1011A EMAND S ClIECK YES only if dern in commisint JURY DEMAND: VYes RI No EY OF RECORD DATE March 19, 2009 FOR 0 rt E USX ONLY AMOUNT lifil6RECEIPT a 7.17(51G9te EFTA00175267

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80469 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. / DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO & MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, replies to and moves to strike Point 4 of Plaintiff's Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Defendant Epstein's Motion To Dismiss, dated May 22, 2009, ("MOL"). Accordingly, Defendant states: I. Legal Standard (pp. 1-2 of Plaintiff's MOLI Plaintiff's reliance on Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), as the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard is misplaced. As discussed in Defendant's motion to dismiss, (pp. 16 - 17), the standard as detailed in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twomblv, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), Is now the applicable standard, not Conley. Although the complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations, the basis for relief in the complaint must state "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twomblv, at 1965. Further, "fflactual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level ... on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. The United States Supreme Court very recently made clear in Ashcroft v. lubal No. 07-1015 (U.S. May 18, EFTA00175268

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 3 of 11 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 3 counter and does not appear to directly dispute Defendant's position that the state court would have concurrent jurisdiction over the claim brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255. Secondly, Plaintiff's assertion, (MOL, p.2, fn. 1), that it is somehow improper to attach a copy of this same Plaintiff's Complaint from the state court proceeding in support of Defendant's motion is ridiculous. It is completely proper and in essence required of any party to give notice to a court of a related pending proceeding. (See for example, Loc. Gen. Rule 3.8 (S.D. Fla. 2009).' The fact that there does exists a previously filed action by Plaintiff against Defendant is directly relevant to this Court's decision of whether or not to exercise jurisdiction over the §2255 claim when there exists a previously filed proceeding in which the claim might also be brought. Needless to say, whether or not a Court exercises jurisdiction over a matter is a critical issue. Finally, Plaintiff completely mischaracterizes what she herself alleged in paragraph 15 of her Complaint. In her MOL, p. 7, Plaintiff falsely asserts that in par. 15 she "pled that Defendant made an agreement with the United States Attorney's Office to not contest the jurisdiction of this Court in exchange for avoiding prosecution under federal law for solicitation of minors for prostitution." What is actually alleged in par. 15 is the following: "Defendant EPSTEIN has made an agreement with the United States Attorney's Office to not contest liability for claims brought exclusively 'See also Bray & Gillespie Management LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4826115, 1 (M.D. Fla. 2008) — "Wile Court 'may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.' St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. FDIC, 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir.1979); accord Coney v., Smith, 738 F.2d 1199, 1200 (11th Cir.1984). Counsel should be given notice of and an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 201(e)." Here, Plaintiff filed the state court action and is, thusly, well of aware of its existence and details. EFTA00175269

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 5 of 11 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 5 does not provide for a multiplier and speaks in terms of "personal injury" suffered and "actual damages." Supporting the fact that Defendant properly raised these issues in his motion to dismiss are the allegations set forth in Plaintiff's complaint. In paragraph 11, Jane Doe II alleges that — "From about June, 2003 until about February, 2005, Defendants, EPSTEIN and persuaded, induced, or enticed Plaintiff to come to Defendant EPSTEIN's home and provide Defendant EPSTEIN with 'massages' ... ." In paragraph 13, Plaintiff further alleges — "In violation of §2422(b), Defendants EPSTEIN and knowingly persuaded, induced, or enticed the Plaintiff to engage in acts of prostitution, when the Plainitff was undr the age of 18, approximately on or about the following dates that Plaintiff can document based on payments received: 6/16/03, 7/2/03, 4/9/04, 6/7/04, 7130/04, 8/30/04, 10/9/04, 10/12/04 and 11/9/04. ." In paragraph 14, Plaintiff alleges — "Plaintiff seeks damages for personal injury in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) for each of the acts of prostitution set forth above which Defendants solicited her, $150,000 for each violation, for a total range of damages between $1.5 million dollars and $4.5 million dollars, jointly and severally, and a reasonable attorney's fees and costs, as permitted by the statute." Plaintiff chooses to analyze whether the statute in effect at the time of the alleged conduct or the amended statute applies under a procedural versus substantive analysis. Plaintiff, in short, argues that "the change in the civil remedies available of a statute is a procedural, not a substantive change in the law, and procedural changes to a statute are routinely applied retroactively." (MOL, p. 9). Clearly , the change to the statute was EFTA00175270

• Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 7 of 11 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 7 quoting as it confirms and supports that an amendment to a statute, such as in the instant case — increasing the penalty or liability for damages by at least triple fold, or under Plaintiffs analysis, by 90 times from $50,000 to $4.5 million! - and with no expression that it is to apply retroactively — will not be interpreted to apply retroactively. Congress may prescribe the temporal reach of a statute by stating that it applies to pre-enactment conduct, the first step in the Landgraf analysis, or a statute may be silent regarding temporal reach, in which case courts apply tho judicial presumption against retroactivity. This presumption and analysis, however, are unwarranted when Congress states its unambiguous intention that the statute apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct, in language comparable to § 1658(b), that the new or amended statute applies to proceedings commenced on or after enactment. See Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 259- 60, 114 S.Ct. at 1494 (stating that, if had Congress intended retroactive application, then "it surely would have used language comparable to ... 'shall apply to all proceedings pending on or commenced after the date of enactment' ") (citation omitted); accord INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 318-19 & n. 43, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 2289-90 & n. 43, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001) (collecting examples of unambiguous temporal statutory language providing that the statute applies to actions filed "on or after" the date of enactment, which includes violative conduct that occurred prior to the effective date of the statute); Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343, 354, 119 S.Ct. 1998, 2004, 144 L.Ed.2d 347 (1999) (stating that " 'new provisions shall apply to all proceedings pending on or commenced after the date of enactment,' " referenced in Landgraf, "unambiguously addresses the temporal reach of the statute" (citation omitted)); Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 329 n. 4, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2064 n. 4, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (recognizing from Landgraf that statutory language such as, " `[This Act] shall apply to all proceedings pending on or commenced after the date of enactment of this Act,' " "might possibly have qualified as a clear statement for retroactive effect" (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 260, 114 S.Ct. at 1494)); Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 307-08, 114 S.Ct. 1510, 1517, 128 L.Ed.2d 274 (1994) (noting that the subject statute omitted a provision in the bill that the amendment "'shall apply to all proceedings pending on or commenced after' " a fixed date and describing the bill as containing "express retroactivity provisions"). ... Unlike other statutory enactments or amendments (cited above) where Congress unambiguously expressed its intent regarding retroactive application, there is no expression with respect to Masha's Law, the 2006 amended version of §2255. An EFTA00175271

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 9 of 11 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 9 discussed in Part III, A. of Defendant's motion to dismiss, unlike other statutes, there is absolutely no language in the statute that suggest that the presumptive damages amount is subject to multiplication on a per violation/incident basis. The statute on its face speaks in terms of "actual damages" and "personal injury suffered." The recent case of United States v. Berdeal, 595 F.Supp.2d 1326 (S.D. Fla. 2009), further supports Defendant's argument that the "rule of lenity," (Part. ■. of Defendant's motion), requires that the Court resolve the statutory interpretation conflict in favor of Defendant. Assuming for the sake of argument that Plaintiff's multiple causes of action, leading to a multiplication of the statutory damages amount, is a reasonable interpretation, like Defendant's reasonable interpretation, under the "rule of lenity," any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the least draconian measure. In Berdeal, applying the rule of. lenity, the Court sided with the Defendants' interpretation of the Lacey Act which makes illegal the possession of snook caught in specified jurisdictions. The snook had been caught in Nicaraguan waters. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss asserting the statute did not encompass snook caught in foreign waters. The United States disagreed. Both sides presented reasonable interpretations regarding the reach of the statute. In dismissing the indictment, the Court determined that the rule of lenity required it to accept defendants' interpretation. Point 4. Point 4 is required to be stricken as Plaintiff attempts to argue facts not alleged In the Complaint, and misrepresents what is alleged in the Complaint. Point 4 of Plaintiff's MOL, p. 15-17, is required to be stricken as it not only argues facts outside of the four corners of the complaint, but it continues to misrepresent what is actually alleged In paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs complaint. See discussion under "Point EFTA00175272

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 11 of 11 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 11 Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 F isidrogarcia(a:bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 ch, FL 33401-5012 Fax jaqesaabellsouth.net Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectful) By: ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar o. 224162 reritAbcicl w.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 ch, FL 33401 Fax: (Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00175273

Caie 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA J ) and ) ) Defendants. ) PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, JANE DOE II, through counsel, opposes Defendant's RICHARD EPSTEIN's Motion to Dismiss. Defendant's argument for a dismissal is premised on the following: 1) Plaintiff is not permitted to file a claim under Florida law in a State of Florida court and then file a federal claim in a federal court; 2) the remedies amendment to 18 U.S.C.§2255 are not retroactive based on the dates Defendant EPSTEIN is alleged to have violated the statute; 3) damages under §2255 cannot be obtained on a per incident basis, but must be lumped together into a single recovery despite multiple violations occurring in temporally distinct time frames, and therefore being different incidents; 4) Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action under §2255 because she has failed to "allege facts constituting a predicate act"; and 5) Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for conspiracy to violate §2255. I. LEGAL STANDARD Defendants motion to dismiss must be denied unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claims that would entitle her to relief. EFTA00175274

' Caste 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 3 of 20 under many circumstances.2 28 U.S.C. §1367, "supplemental jurisdiction," provides that: @) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if-- (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. Courts routinely "are obligated to raise and decide issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte any time it appears subject matter jurisdiction is absent." Carias v. Lenox Financial Mortgage Corporation, 2008 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 20345 *1 (N.D. Cal. March 5, 2008). In Carias, after granting summary judgment on the sole federal claim, the Court remanded the State claims to state court, stating: "The Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims and remands the action to state court. The Court finds that the issues of economy, convenience, fairness and comity collectively weigh in favor of remand. See Harrell, 934 F.2d at 205. Comity weighs especially strong, given that the remaining claims are pure state law claims with no connection to federal law. Economy also weighs in favor of remand as state courts are better equipped to efficiently handle state 2 In United Mine Workers v. Gibbs 383 U.S. 715 (1966), a jury's verdict against a union based on State law claims was reversed, in part, because the federal law claim failed. The Court noted that: "It has consistently been recognized that pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiffs right. Its justification lies in considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants; if these are not present a federal court should hesitate to exercise jurisdiction over state claims, even though bound to apply state law to them, Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64.Needless decisions of state law [by a federal court) should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law." 3 EFTA00175275

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 5 of 20 inapplicable to this case. Only in "exceptional" circumstances, to promote conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation, would a federal court be authorized to dismiss federal parallel' claims that are initiated in state court. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). However, for the Colorado River doctrine to even apply, there must be clear Congressional direction that would preclude a federal court's "virtually unflagging obligation ...to exercise federal jurisdiction." it at 817. In that case, the Supreme Court found that clear Congressional direction from the McCarran Amendment, which the Court read to counsel against "piecemeal litigation" concerning issues of water rights in a river system, favored abstention Ids at 819. Even with this clear Congressional direction, if other factors had not favored abstention, it may not have been orderedids at 820. Defendant EPSTEIN does not offer any evidence of any Congressional direction that would direct this Court to abstain for claims under 18 U.S.C. §2255.4 Further, the Colorado River doctrine only applies when federal courts are presented with "difficult questions of state 3The federal claims that are the subject matter of this action are not necessarily parallel, although the incidents that gave rise to both the federal and state claims arise from the same series of events. A Florida appellate court, for example, has refused to apply principles of res judicata to bar State discrimination claims after the plaintiff lost federal discrimination claims. Anduiar v. National Prope y & Casualty Underwriters 659 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (adverse judgment against plaintiff in federal court for federal discrimination claims did not bar subsequent action under state discrimination laws). Here, although some of the elements for some of the claims may be similar, they are sufficiently different that application of Anduiar would preclude res judicata. To determine whether a case is parallel, courts have looked to whether the same issues are being litigated. Calvert Fire Ins, Co. v. American Mut. Reins. Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1229, n. 1 (7th Cir. 1979); the issues in the State court and in this Court are not the same. 'The Supreme Court said that Congressional direction is the "[m]ost important factor." id. at 819. 5 EFTA00175276

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 7 of 20 Colorado River doctrine has been applied to a federal claim under §2255. The cases cited by Defendant EPSTEIN do not support a decision by this Court to abstain over what is a purely federal claim. In American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (11th Cir. 1990), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because there had been an earlier claim for declaratory relief in State Court; the Eleventh Circuit reversed, concluding ...that no exceptional circumstances require dismissal of this case in deference to the pending state court proceeding. If it were simply a question of judicial economy, this litigation probably should proceed in the New York court. A federal court cannot properly decline to exercise its statutory jurisdiction, however, simply because judicial economy might be served by deferring to a state court. Federal courts have a 'virtually unflagging obligation' to exercise the jurisdiction given them.' Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 816, 96 S. Ct. at 1246. The interest in preserving federal jurisdiction mandates that this action not be dismissed. 891 F.2d at 886. Finally, Plaintiff has pled that Defendant EPSTEIN has made an agreement with the United States Attorney's Office to not contest the jurisdiction of this Court in exchange for a avoiding prosecution under federal law for solicitation of minors for prostitution. Complaint, ¶15. Defendant EPSTEIN appears to be violating the agreement in contesting the jurisdiction of this Court; at a minimum, at this stage of the pleadings he should be estopped from contesting jurisdiction, since the allegations of ¶15 must be accepted as true .° Point 2. The retroactivity of the amendments to §2255 is not appropriately addressed in a motion to dismiss; but if the Court is so inclined to consider it, there are insufficient facts pled in the Complaint to render the 2006 amendments inapplicable to the case at bar. 'Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant EPSTEIN's agreement is between the United States and he; however, the Plaintiff and the other victims of his sexual predation may be considered third party beneficiaries to the agreement. 7 EFTA00175277

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 9 of 20 issue would be better addressed on a summary judgment motion, and again, has nothing to do with whether Plaintiff has pled a cause of action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. Plaintiff agrees with the general proposition that a new law that creates new substantive rights, absent Congressional direction to the contrary, does not have retroactive effect, but this is not a new law. §2255 was amended in 2006, to, inter alia, provide an enhanced minimum recovery for damages caused by sexual predators such as Defendant EPSTEIN. However, the change in the civil remedies available of a statute is a procedural, not a substantive change in the law, and procedural changes to a statute are routinely applied retroactively!' Where substantive changes in a law are made by Congress, a slim majority of the Supreme Court has declined retroactive application, even where the law was ostensibly enacted to overrule a Court precedent that had itself, in the view of Congress, overruled earlier Court precedents. Rivers v. Roadway Express, 511 U.S. 298, 308 (1994).9 °Defendant EPSTEIN also cites to United States v. Siegel, 153 F.3d 1256 (111' Cir. 1998), wherein, based on a defendant's inability to pay restitution mandated by a penal statute, the Court reversed a restitution order. An amendment to the statute removed from consideration the defendant's ability to pay restitution; the Court said such an amendment could not be applied retroactively because the provision amounted to a punishment under a penal statute, and would violate the ex post facto provision in the U. S. Constitution, This case is clearly distinguished our case: the statute here is a civil, not a penal remedy; the amendment to the statute modifies the minimal exposure of the Defendant, but does not, as in the Siegel case, dispense with a substantive defense to a restitution claim. United States v. Whiting 165 F.3d 631 (89' Cir. 1999), where a conviction for possession of child pornography was upheld, despite the fact that the conduct of the defendant was arguably not specifically proscribed by statute at the time the images were possessed; the Court held the legislative amendment was a mere clarification of the prior legislation and not an ex post facto law. 9 Justice Scalia cited the statement of purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to hold that, for example, the amendments specifically designed to overrule Patterson v. McLean Credit Union 491 U.S. 164, 105 L. Ed. 2d 132, 109 S. Ct. 2363, should be 9 EFTA00175278

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 11 of 20 that the compensatory damages provisions smack of a "retributive" or other suspect legislative purpose. Section 102 reflects Congress' desire to afford victims of discrimination more complete redress for violations of rules established more than a generation ago in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At least with respect to its compensatory damages provisions, then, § 102 is not in a category in which objections to retroactive application on grounds of fairness have their greatest force. Nonetheless, the new compensatory damages provision would operate "retrospectively" if it were applied to conduct occurring before November 21, 1991. Unlike certain other forms of relief, compensatory damages are quintessentially backward looking. Compensatory damages may be intended less to sanction wrongdoers than to make victims whole, but they do so by a mechanism that affects the liabilities of defendants. They do not "compensate" by distributing funds from the public coffers, but by requiring particular employers to pay for harms they caused. The introduction of a right to compensatory damages is also the type of legal change that would have an impact on private parties' planning. In this case, the event to which the new damages provision relates is the discriminatory conduct of respondents' agent John Williams; if applied here, that provision would attach an important new legal burden to that conduct. The new damages remedy in § 102, we conclude, is the kind of provision that does not apply to events antedating its enactment in the absence of clear congressional intent. In cases like this one, in which prior law afforded no relief, § 102 can be seen as creating a new cause of action, and its impact on parties' rights Is especially pronounced. Section 102 confers a new right to monetary relief on persons like petitioner who were victims of a hostile work environment but were not constructively discharged, and the novel prospect of damages liability for their employers. Because Title VII previously authorized recovery of backpay in some cases, and because compensatory damages under § 102(a) are in addition to any backpay recoverable, the new provision also resembles a statute increasing the amount of damages available under a preestablished cause of action. Even under that view, however, the provision would, if applied in cases arising before the Act's effective date, undoubtedly impose on employers found liable a "new disability" in respect to past events. See Society for Propagation of the Gospel, 22 F. Cas. at 767. The extent of a party's liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored. Neither in Bradley itself, nor in any case before or since in which Congress had not clearly spoken, have we read a statute substantially increasing the monetary liability of a private party to apply to conduct occurring before the statute's enactment. See Winfree v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 227 U.S. 296, 301, 57 L. Ed. 518, 33 S. Ct. 273 (1913) (statute creating new federal cause of action for wrongful death 11 EFTA00175279

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 13 of 20 statutory enactments is simply not present here, and the record is devoid of any factual material that would support such a conclusion.10 As Justice Blackmun said in dissent in Landsgraf, there is no vested right to break the law." Bottom line is, a motion to dismiss a claim is not the correct procedural mechanism to determine the retroactivity of a statute. Landsgraf was decided after a trial on the merits of the claim, wherein the trial court determined that although the sexual harassment was serious, the employer, upon learning of it, had taken prompt remedial measures to correct it, and the plaintiff did not have sufficient cause to warrant quitting her job. Id. at 247-48. Rivers v. Roadway Express, 511 U.S. 298 (1994) was decided after a trial on the merits as well, wherein the Court dismissed the 1981 claims based on the holding in Patterson, supra and exonerated the Defendant on the Title VII claims in a bench trial. On appeal, the plaintiff sought relief under the 1991 Civil Rights Act amendments, which overruled Patterson. These 1° Although outside the pleadings and not appropriate for consideration on a Motion to Dismiss, Defendant EPSTEIN has refused to answer any substantive questions in the only two (2) depositions he has given in all these cases, including in the State court case involving this Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not been able to ascertain whether Defendant EPSTEIN had settled expectations about the limits of his civil liability under §2255. 11"At no time within the last generation has an employer had a vested right to engage in or to permit sexual harassment; 'there is no such thing as a vested right to do wrong.' Freeborn v. Smith, 69 U.S. 160, 2 Wall. 160, 175, 17 L. Ed. 922 (1865). See also 2 N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 41.04, p. 349 (4th rev. ed. 1986) (procedural and remedial statutes that do not take away vested rights are presumed to apply to pending actions). Section 102 of the Act expands the remedies available for acts of intentional discrimination, but does not alter the scope of the employee's basic right to be free from discrimination or the employers corresponding legal duty. There is nothing unjust about holding an employer responsible for injuries caused by conduct that has been illegal for almost 30 years." Id. at 297. Similarly in this case, soliciting minors for acts of prostitution, has been unlawful and the civil remedy associated therewith has long preceded the acts in question. 13 EFTA00175280

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 15 of 20 minimum 'actual damages- , Id. at 1379, but there is no suggestion in this Opinion that the Plaintiff was so limited, no reference to whether Plaintiff sought the relief being sought here or that the events she complained of occurred on multiple occasions. In fact, it appears clear from the Opinion that the pro se Defendant that Plaintiff prevailed against by default was sued for a singular violation of recording the Plaintiff's sexually oriented performance at a Spring Break gathering. There is no indication that the conduct that was recorded by the defaulted Defendant occurred on multiple occasions, as here. Point 4. The Eleventh Circuit has foreclosed Defendant EPSTEIN's argument that for a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) to occur, he must travel in interstate commerce; moreover, he has waived his right to contest the jurisdiction of the Court according to the allegations of the Complaint. In United States v. Yost 479 F.3d 815 (11'" Cir. 2007), a defendant was convicted of two counts of attempting to induce persons he believed were minors (they were government agents posing as minors) to commit acts of prostitution under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b); he sought to void his convictions on appeal because he didn't get to the meeting place. The Court rejected the argument, holding: We are not convinced by Yost's argument that his failure to arrive at the meeting place precludes a finding of a substantial step. Although this is the first time we have been confronted with an attempt conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) where travel is not involved, two other circuits have examined the issue and determined travel is not necessary to sustain such a conviction. In United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639-40 (6th Cir. 2000), the Sixth Circuit affirmed a conviction under Section 2422(b) where the defendant sent e-mails proposing oral sex and attempted to set up meetings with minor females, albeit unsuccessfully. Similarly, in United States v. Thomas, 410 F.3d 1235, 1246 (10th Cir. 2005), the Tenth Circuit affirmed a Section 2422(b) attempt conviction, despite a lack of evidence of travel. The Tenth Circuit stated: "Thomas crossed the line from 'harmless banter' to inducement the moment he began making arrangements to meet [the minor], notwithstanding the lack of evidence that he traveled to the supposed meeting place." Id. Viewing the 15 EFTA00175281

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 17 of 20 sexual services he paid the Plaintiff for. Defendant resides and is believed to have resided in New York at all times relevant to this suit, although she was present at Defendant EPSTEIN's home on some of the occasions when the Plaintiff appeared after being summoned there. However, since she used a cellular phone, that is clearly a facility of interstate commerce as contemplated by 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), which encompasses conduct where "any facility or means of interstate commerce" is used." The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that "[tlhe telephone system is clearly a 'facility of interstate . . . commerce.'" United States v. Covington, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8263 (11' Cir. April 22, 2009). Defendant EPSTEIN is alleged in the Complaint to have waived the right to contest the jurisdiction of this Court for claims under §2255, he should therefore be estopped from asserting the failure to allege predicate acts, particularly when he has refused to answer any questions based on his claimed right against self incrimination. However, if the Court is of the view that these predicate facts must be alleged despite the agreement, then Plaintiff requests leave to do so. Point 5. Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to establish a conspiracy to violate §2255. A civil conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons, to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means, the doing of an overt act in furtherance of the " "(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life." (Emphasis added). 17 EFTA00175282

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 19 of 20 inappropriate for the Defendant to seek to limit his minimum statutory exposure on a Motion to Dismiss, where there is no factual record or legislative history to determine the retroactivity of an enhanced damages provision to a cause of action that existed at the time of the wrongful acts. §2255 claims permit a Plaintiff to assert multiple claims for multiple violations that occur in temporally distinct time frames, no differently than any claim, whether based on tort or statutory law, that encompasses multiple events that occur at different times. Defendant EPSTEIN has waived the right to contest the issue of whether his conduct impacted interstate commerce; but Plaintiff is prepared to allege, if the Court deems it necessary, how his employee and coconspirator, Defendant used an instrumentality of interstate commerce, her cell phone, to solicit the Plaintiff, then a minor, on behalf of Defendant EPSTEIN who solicited her sexual services for money. Finally, Plaintiff has pled all necessary elements to establish a civil conspiracy to violate §2255. For these reasons, Defendant EPSTEIN's Motion to Dismiss must be denied; however, if the Court determines otherwise, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend. Respectfully submitted, BY: s/ Isidro M. Garcia ISIDRO M. GARCIA Florida Bar No. 437883 GARCIA LAW FIRM, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Telephone: Telecopier: e-mail: [email protected] 19 EFTA00175283

Casa 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80469 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and for more definite statement. Rule 12(b)(6), (e), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008); Local Gen. Rule 7.1 (S.D. Fla. 2008). In support of dismissal, Defendant states: At the outset, Defendant gives notice to the Court that issues pertaining to 18 U.S.C. §2255 in this motion to dismiss are also raised in the case of v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON, in Defendant's Motion to Dismiss directed to Plaintiff 's Amended Complaint, Plaintiff .'s Response, and Defendant's reply to .'s response (which has yet to be filed). In this action, Plaintiffs Complaint attempts to allege a cause of action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 - Civil Remedies for Personal Injuries. Significantly, Plaintiff previously a filed lawsuit on July 10, 2008, based on the same facts as alleged herein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit In and For Palm Beach County, State of Florida, Case No. EFTA00175284

• Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 3 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 3 federal actions reveals that they are almost identical. Based on the same allegations, in the state action, Plaintiff attempts to assert claims based on state law for Sexual Battery (Count I) and Civil Conspiracy (Count II); in this action, Plaintiff Is attempting to assert a cause of action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255, which applicable version provides — PART I--CRIMES CHAPTER 110--SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN § 2255. Civil remedy for personal Injuries (a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 22411, 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title an who suffers personal Injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 In value. (b) Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in the case of a person under a legal disability, not later than three years after the disability. CREDIT(S) (Added Pub.L. 99-500, Title I, § 101(b) [Title VII, § 703(a)1, Oct. 18, 1986, 100 Stat. 1783-75, and amended Pub.L. 99-591, Title I, § 101(b) [Title VII, § 703(a)], Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 3341-75; Pub.L. 105-314, Title VI, § 605, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2984.) (Emphasis added). Plaintiff is likely to argue that the jurisdiction of the federal court over §2255 claims is exclusive. However, unlike other Congressional enactments, there is no language In the statute which expressly states that jurisdiction of such cause of action lies exclusively with the federal courts. Furthermore, there is a presumption of concurrent jurisdiction of state courts. See generally, Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820, 823, 110 S.Ct. 1566, 1568-69 (1990). "Under our 'system of dual sovereignty, we have consistently held that state courts have inherent authority, and are thus EFTA00175285

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 5 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 5 the principles articulated in Colorado River Water Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976) and Moses H. Cone Memorial How. v. Mercury Constr. 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)." The six factors considered are (1) whether one of the courts has assumed jurisdiction over property; (2) the inconvenience of the federal forum; (3) the potential for piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction; (5) whether state or federal law will be applied; and (6) the adequacy of the state court to protect the parties' rights. "The test for determining when exceptional circumstances exist, therefore, involves the careful balancing of six factors. The weight to be given any one factor may vary greatly depending on the case; however, the balance is "heavily weighted" in favor of the federal court exercising jurisdiction. Id. at 16, 103 S.Ct. at 937." American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882, 884 (11th Cir. 1990). The list of factors is neither exhaustive, nor is it a mechanical checklist. See AM.JUR. FED. COURTS, § 1114. In the instant case, the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth factors are implicated. Clearly, more than a "potential" for piecemeal litigation exists if Plaintiff were allowed to proceed in two separate forums alleging the identical facts against the identical parties. Discovery and rulings thereon would involve the same set of facts, yet could result in inconsistent and varying rulings thereon. Should the cases proceed separately to trial, factual findings and judgments rendered in one could be inconsistent with the other. Appeals would proceed separately and in a piecemeal fashion. The piecemeal effect would be both excessive and deleterious if these cases were to proceed in parallel EFTA00175286

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 7 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 7 (quoted above). See endnote 1 hereto, Complaint ¶11, 13.1 It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landqraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994): ... the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence, and embodies a legal doctrine centuries older than our Republic. Elementary considerations of fairness dictate that individuals should have an opportunity to know what the law is and to conform their conduct accordingly; settled expectations should not be lightly disrupted.fN18 For that reason, the "principle that the legal effect of conduct should ordinarily be assessed under the law that existed when the conduct took place has timeless and universal appeal? Kaiser, 494 U.S., at 855, 110 S.Ct., at 1586 (SCALIA, J., concurring). In a free, dynamic society, creativity in both commercial and artistic endeavors is fostered by a rule of law that gives people confidence about the legal consequences of their actions. FN18. See General Motors Corp. v. RomeIn, 503 U.S. 181, 191, 112 S.Ct. 1105, 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 328 (1992) ("Retroactive legislation presents problems of unfairness that are more serious than those posed by prospective legislation, because it can deprive citizens of legitimate expectations and upset settled transactions"); [Further citations omitted]. It is therefore not surprising that the antiretroactivity principle finds expression in several provisions of our Constitution. The Ex Post Facto Clause flatly prohibits retroactive application of penal legislation.FN19 Article I, § 10, cl. 1, prohibits States from passing another type of retroactive legislation, laws "impairing the Obligation of Contracts! The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause prevents the Legislature (and other government actors) from depriving private persons of vested property rights except for a "public use" and upon payment of lust compensation? The prohibitions on "Bills of Attainder in Art. I, §§ 9-10, prohibit legislatures from singling out disfavored persons and meting out summary punishment for past conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722, 14 L.Ed.2d 484 (1965). The Due Process Clause also protects the interests in fair notice and repose that may be compromised by retroactive legislation; a Justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one directed to Congress (§ 9, cl. 3), the other to the States (§ 10, cl. 1). We have construed the Clauses as applicable only to penal legislation. See Calder v. Bull, 3 Dail. 386, 390-391, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.). EFTA00175287

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 9 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 9 1998); and generally Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798). The United States Constitution provides that "InIci Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" by Congress. U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3. A law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause if it " 'appli[es] to events occurring before its enactment ... [and] disadvantage[s] the offender affected by it' by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime." 14/rice v. Mathis 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (quoting Weaver v. Graham 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). U.S. v. Sieuel,153 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 1998). In improperly attempting to multiply the presumptive minimum actual damages amount, Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period "from about June, 2003 until on or about February, 2005." See endnote 1. In paragraph 14 of her Complaint, Plaintiff references the 2006 amended version of §2255 which raised the presumptive actual damages amount from $50,000 to $150,000; Plaintiff also improperly claims that she is entitled to "$150,000 for each violation, for a total range of damages between $1.5 million dollars to $4.5 million dollars, jointly and severally, ... ." ¶14. §2255 is contained in Title 18 of the United States Codes - "Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Part I. Crimes, Chap. 110. Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children." 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2005), is entitled Civil remedy for personal injuries, and imposes a presumptive minimum of damages in the amount of $50,000, should Plaintiff prove any violation of the specified criminal statutes and that she suffered personal injury with actual damages sustained. Thus, the effect of the 2006 amendments, effective July 27, 2006, would be to triple the amount of the statutory minimum previously in effect during the time of the alleged acts. If one were to take Plaintiff's EFTA00175288

Case• 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 11 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 11 penalty or punishment, "Title II — Punishing Sexual Predators," Sec. 206, from House Report No. 105-557, 5-6, specifically includes reference to the remedy created under §2255 as an additional means of punishing sexual predators, along with other penalties and punishments. Senatorial Comments in amending §2255 in 2006 confirm that the creation of the presumptive minimum damage amount is meant as an additional penalty against those who sexually exploit or abuse children. 2006 WL 2034118, 152 Cong. Rec. S8012-02. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. The cases of U.S. v. Siegel, supra (11th Cir. 1998), and U.S. v. Edwards, supra (3d Cir. 1998), also support Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 would be in clear violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. In Siegel, the Eleventh Circuit found that the Ex Post Facto Clause barred application of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) to the defendant whose criminal conduct occurred before the effective date of the statute, 18 U.S.C. §3664(f)(1)(A), even though the guilty plea and sentencing proceeding occurred after the effective date of the statute. On July 19, 1996, the defendant Siegel pleaded guilty to various charges under 18 U.S.C. §371 and §1956(a)(1)(A), (conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, bank fraud, and laundering of money instruments; and money laundering). He was sentenced on March 7, 1997. As part of his sentence, Siegel was ordered to pay $1,207,000.00 in restitution under the MVRA which became effective on April 24, 1996. Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 1229-1236. The 1996 amendments to MVRA required that the district court must order restitution in the full amount of the victim's loss EFTA00175289

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 13 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 13 Clause." Id, at 1259. In determining that the application of the 1996 MVRA would indeed run afoul of the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause, the Court agreed with the majority of the Circuits that restitution under the 1996 MVRA was an increased penalty.2 "The effect of the MVRA can be detrimental to a defendant. Previously, after considering the defendant's financial condition, the court had the discretion to order restitution in an amount less than the loss sustained by the victim. Under the MVRA, however, the court must order restitution to each victim in the full amount." Id, at 1260. See also U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.2d 87 (3rtl Circuit 1998). In the instant case, in answering the first question, it is clear that that imposition of a minimum amount of damages, regardless of the amount of actual damages suffered by a minor victim, is meant to be a penalty or punishment. See statutory text and House Bill Reports, cited above herein, consistently referring to the presumptive minimum damages amount under §2255 as "punishment" or "penalties." According to the Ex Post Facto doctrine, although §2255 is labeled a "civil remedy," such label is not dispositive; "if the effect of the statute is to impose punishment that is criminal in nature, the ex post facto clause is implicated." See generally, Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, at 360, citing Kansas v. Hendricks 521 U.S. 346, 360-61 (1997). The effect of applying the 2006 version of §2255 would be to triple the amount of the presumptive minimum damages to a minor who proves the 2 The Eleventh Circuit, in holding that "the MVRA cannot be applied to a person whose criminal conduct occurred prior to April 24, 1996," was "persuaded by the majority of districts on this Issue." "Restitution is a criminal penalty carrying with it characteristics of criminal punishment." Siegel slit 1260. The Eleventh Circuit is in agreement with the Second, Third, Eighth, Ninth, and . Circuits. See U.S. v, Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1289-90 (11th Cir. 2000). EFTA00175290

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 15 of 29 Jana Doe II v. Epstein, et al, Page 15 application. As noted, 18 U.S.C. §2255 is entitled "Civil remedy for personal Injuries." Notwithstanding this label, the statute was enacted as part of the criminal statutory scheme to punish those who sexually exploit and abuse minors. Regardless of the actual damages suffered or proven by a minor, as long as a minor proves violation of a specified statutory criminal act under §2255 and personal injury, the defendant is held liable for the statutory Imposed minimum. As explained by the Landqraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,3 When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the events In suit, the court's first task is to determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach. If Congress has done so, of course, there is no need to resort to judicial default rules. When, however, the statute contains no such express command, the court must determine whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, i.e., whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, Increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. If the statute would operate retroactively, our traditional presumption teaches that It does not govern absent clear congressional intent favoring such a result. Here, there is no clear expression of intent regarding the 2006 Act's application to conduct occurring well before its enactment. Clearly, however, as discussed in part B herein, the presumptive minimum amount of damages of $150,000 was enacted as an punishment or penalty upon those who sexually exploit and abuse minors. See discussion of House Bill Reports and Congressional background above herein. The amount triples the previous amount for which a defendant might be found liable, regardless of the amount of actual damages a plaintiff has suffered and proven. The new 3 In Landoraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined that statutory text in question, §102, was subject to the presumption against statutory retroactivity. EFTA00175291

Case* 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 17 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 17 allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level ... on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. On a motion to dismiss, the well pleaded allegations of plaintiffs complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. M.T.V. v. DeKalb County Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153, 1156 (11th Cir.2006). In discussing Twombly the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (111h Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulation of the pleading specificity standard is that 'stating such a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest' the required element." In order to sufficiently allege the claim, the complaint is required to identify "facts that are suggestive enough to render [the element] plausible." Watts, 495 F.3d at 1296 (quoting Twomblv, 127 S.Ct. at 1965). Pursuant to Rule 12(e), a party may move for more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed where the pleading "is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably frame a response." The motion is required to point out the defects and the desired details. Id. As to the general rules and form of pleading, Rules 8 and 10, a claim for relief must contain "a short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief;" Rule 8(a)(3); and may contain alternative claims within a count or as many separate claims. Rule 10(d)(2) and (3). A. 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) does not allow the Plaintiff to multiple the presumptive minimum damages amount on a per incident or per violation basis. In attempting to allege a §2255 claim, Plaintiff alleges that she is entitled to a multiplication of the presumptive minimum damages amount based on the number of EFTA00175292

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 19 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 19 Martinez v. White, 492 F.Supp.2d 1186, 1188 (N.D. Cal. 2007), (emphasis added). 18 U.S.C.A. §2255 "merely provides a cause of action for damages in 'any appropriate United States District Court." Id, at 1189. In Tilton v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc 554 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. Jan. 15, 2009), the District Court granted plaintiff "the minimum 'actual damages' prescribed by §2255(a)," wherein plaintiff alleged that defendants had violated three of the statutory predicate acts; there was no multiplying of the award. It is well settled that in interpreting a statute, the court's inquiry begins with the plain and unambiguous language of the statutory text. CBS, Inc. v. Prime Time 24 Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (111h Cir. 2001)• U.S. v. Castroneves, 2009 WL 528251, *3 (S.D. Fla. 2009), citing Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2008); and Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("When interpreting a statute, [a court's] inquiry begins with the text."). "The Court must first look to the plain meaning of the words, and scrutinize the statute's 'language, structure, and purpose." Id. In addition, in construing a statute, a court is to presume that the legislature said what it means and means what it said, and not add language or give some absurd or strained interpretation. As stated in CBS. Inc supra at 1228 — "Those who ask courts to give effect to perceived legislative intent by interpreting statutory language contrary to its plain and unambiguous meaning are in effect asking courts to alter that language, and '[c]ourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of [the] provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187.° See also Dodd v. U.S., 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. EFTA00175293

• Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 21 of 29 Jane Doe II v Epstein, et al. Page 21 had intended to abrogate the forum non conveniens doctrine in a §2255 action; the District Court noted that the statute does not contain a mandatory venue provision. Had Congress wanted to get rid of the forum non-conveniens doctrine, it would have said so in the statute. Also, in Smith v. Husband 428 F.Supp. 432; and 376 F.Supp.2d 603, the plaintiff invoked "the accompanying civil remedy for these criminal violations, stating that she has sustained and continues to sustain physical and mental damages, humiliation, and embarrassment as a result of Defendant's criminal acts." In other words, she brought a single cause of action, based on allegations of multiple violations of the §2255 predicate acts. Furthermore, the court refused to add a venue interpretation that simply was not written into the statutory text. See other §2255 cases cited herein. For an example of a statute wherein the legislature included the language "for each violation" in assessing a "civil penalty," see 18 U.S.C. §216, entitled "Penalties and Injunctions," of Chapter 11 — "Bribery, Graft, and Conflict of Interests," also contained in Title 18 — "Crimes and Criminal Procedure." Subsection (b) of §216 gives the United States Attorney General the power to bring a "civil action ... against any person who engages In conduct constituting an offense under" specified sections of the bribery, graft, and conflicts of Interest statutes. The statute further provides in relevant part that "upon proof of such conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation or the amount of compensation which the person received or offered for the prohibited conduct, which ever amount is greater." As noted, 18 U.S.C. §2255 does not include such language. EFTA00175294

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 23 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 23 commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, ... Plaintiff appears to be relying solely on an "agreement with the United States Attorney's Office to not contest liability for claims brought exclusively pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255, in exchange for avoiding federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b)." Complaint, ¶15. As noted above herein, Plaintiff already has additional claims against EPSTEIN pending in state court. See Exhibit A hereto. Even taking Plaintiff's allegation in paragraph 15 as true, Plaintiff is not proceeding exclusively under §2255. Accordingly, under the standard of pleading as established in Twombly, supra, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the requisite elements of a §2255 claim, thus requiring dismissal for failure to state a cause of action. C. In the alternative, pursuant to constitutional law principles of statutory interpretation, 18 U.S.C. §2255 Is required to be interpreted as creating a single "civil remedy" or cause of action on behalf of a minor plaintiff against a defendant. The "civil remedy" afforded is not on a "per violation" or "per incident" basis. As set forth above, it is Defendant's position that the text of 18 U.S.C. §2255 does not allow a Plaintiff to pursue the damages afforded under the statute on a "per violation" or "per incident" basis. In the alternative, if one were to assume that the language of §2255 were vague or ambiguous, under the constitutional based protections of due process, judicial restraint, and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail over EFTA00175295

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 25 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 26 Plaintiffs position would subject Defendant EPSTEIN to a punishment that is not clearly prescribed — an unwritten multiplier of the "actual damages" or the presumptive minimum damages. The rule of lenity requires that Defendant's interpretation of the remedy afforded under §2255 be adopted. As noted above, Plaintiffs interpretation would allow Plaintiff to multiply her recovery without any regard to what the actual damages are. In addition, under the Due Process Clause's basic principle of fair warning - ... a criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a crime ... . As was said in United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74 S.Ct. 808, 812, 98 L.Ed. 989, 'The constitutional requirement of definiteness is violated by a criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute. The underlying principle is that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.' Thus we have struck down a [state] criminal statute under the Due Process Clause where it was not 'sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.' Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322. We have recognized in such cases that 'a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law,' ibid., and that 'No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids.' Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453, 59 S.Ct. 618, 619, 83 L.Ed. 888. Thus, applying these well-entrenched constitutional principles of statutory interpretation and application, Plaintiff's cause of action attempting to multiply the presumptive amount of damages is required to be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. EFTA00175296

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 27 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 27 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 gpecified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this day of 44.4 2009: Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 ach, FL 33401 F isidrogarcia ,bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Fax south.net Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectful By: ROBERT D. ITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar . 224162 rcrit(bcIcla .com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Bar #6 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ax: (Co-counsel for e endant effrey Epstein) ENDNOTES: 1 In paragraph 11 of her Complaint, Jane Doe II alleges 'From about June, 2003 until about February, 2005, Defendants, EPSTEIN and persuaded, induced, or EFTA00175297

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 29 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 29 102, 112 Stat. 2975; Apr. 30, 2003, Pub.L. 108-21, Title I, § 103(a)(2)(A), (B), (b)(2)(A), 117 Stat. 652, 653.) Amendments 2006 Amendments. Subsec. (b). Pub.L. 109-248, § 203, struck out "not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years" and inserted "not less than 10 years or for life". EFTA00175298

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 1 of 7 AEV U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Doe II v. Epstein et al Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Main Lead case: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Member case: (View Member Case) Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question Plainti Jane Doe II V. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Date Filed: 03/24/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question represented by Isidro Manuel Garcia Garcia Elkins & Boehringer 224 Datura Avenue Suite 900 West Palm Beach , FL 33401 I - Email:11111 LEAD ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Michael James Pike Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Email: LEAD ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robert Deweese Critton , Jr. Burman Critton Luther & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 https://ecf.flsd.useouris.govicgi-bin/DIctRpt.p1T945531146089634-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175299

CWECF - Live Database - flsd Page 2 of 7 Defendant ME= Amicus United States of America West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 ax: Emai : LEAD ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by ! !RI PeStates Atton”tkffice 500 East Broward Blvd 7th Floor Ft Lauderdale , FL 33394 smi ext. 3546 Email: RWIllomm ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed # clear Docket Text 03/24/2009 1 r " COMPLAINT against Jeffrey Epstein, Filing fee $ 350.00. Receipt#: 725609, filed by Jane Doe II. J ntere : 03/25/2009) 03/24/2009 2 r Summons Issued as to Jeffrey Epstein, (dj) (Entered: 03/25/2009) 03/25/2009 3 F ORDER OF PRETRIAL PROCEDURES. Signed by Senior Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 3/25/2009. (sh) (Entered: 03/25/2009) 03/26/2009 4 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Kenneth A. Marra for all further proceedings. Senior Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp no longer assigned to case. Signed by Senior Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 3/24/2009. (cqs) (Entered: 03/26/2009) 03/30/2009 5 r Order Requiring Counsel to Confer and File Joint Scheduling Report. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 3/30/2009. (ir) (Entered: 03/30/2009) 04/28/2009 6 7 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why cases should not be consolidated for discovery purposes Show Cause Response due by 5/5/2009.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 4/28/2009. (cqs) (Entered: 04/29/2009) https://eefflsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.pl?945531146089634-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175300

CM/Eg - Liye Database - flsd Page 3 of 7 05/01/2009 7 r Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 1 Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/01/2009) 05/04/2009 8 ENDORSED ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint. Jeffrey Epstein response due 5/6/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/4/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/04/2009 9 r MEMORANDUM in Opposition re ¢ Order to Show Cause by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/05/2009 10 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 9 Memorandum in Opposition filed by Jeffrey Epstein. Error - Wrong Event Selected; Correct event "Response to ORder to Show Cause" In the future Please select the proper event. It is not necessary to refile this document. (tp) (Entered: 05/05/2009) 05/05/2009 11 r MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/05/2009) 05/06/2009 12 ENDORSED ORDER granting U Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/5/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/06/2009) 05/06/2009 13 r Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 5/26/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Pike, Michael) Modified on 5/7/2009 (Is). [Modified description of Attachment(s) from Motions to Dismiss to Exhibit A and Exhibit B] (Entered: 05/06/2009) 05/14/2009 Cases associated. (dg) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 14 r ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES. Hereinafter all motions and other court filings that relate to discovery and all procedural motions that relate to multiple cases shall be styled with all of the case names and numbers and shall be filed in Case No. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (ir) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 15 r ORDER REQUESTING UNITED STATES PROVIDE POSITION TO MOTION TO STAY. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Motion to Stay DE 51) Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (ir) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/15/2009 16 11 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to B Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 1 ComplaintDefendant's MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint by Jane Doe II. (Garcia, Isidro) (Entered: 05/15/2009) 05/19/2009 17 ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot j Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs response is due 5/26/09. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/18/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/19/2009) https://ecf.flsd.useourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pr945531146089634-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175301

CM/Eg - Live Database - flsd Page 4 of 7 05/20/2009 18 n NOTICE by of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to Defendant, Jeey Epstein's Motion to Compel And/Or Identify in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identify . in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, Or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponte, With Inorporated Memorandum of Law Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Hill, Jack) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/20/2009 19 ORDER S G in all Epstein cases EXCEPT case no. 08-80119: Notice by of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to Epstein's Motion to Compel and/or Identify. This Notice should only be filed in 08-80119, not in all of the Epstein cases.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/20/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/22/2009 20 I- RESPONSE in Opposition re 13 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 1 ComplaintDefendant's MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint filed by Jane Doe II. (Garcia, Isidro) (Entered: 05/22/2009) 05/27/2009 21 r NOTICE by Jane Doe re (111 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90)Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 05/27/2009) 05/28/2009 22 ORDER STRIKING Notice by Jane Doe in all Epstein cases EXCEPT in case 08-80119. This Notice should only be filed in 08-80119, not in all of the Epstein cases... Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/28/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (Ic3) (Entered: 05/28/2009) 05/29/2009 23 171 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by on behalf of iiiiiitrall ica Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. , = (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 24 r RESPONSE to Motion re (72 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (62) Amended Complaint, (57 in 9:08-cv-80232- KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (50) Amended Complaint, (24 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (1) Complaint, (23 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (18) Amended Complaint, (22 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (19) Amended Complaint, (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint, (68 in 9:08-cv-80381- KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (60) Amended Complaint, (51 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (40) Amended Complaint and or Continue Action Filed Pursuant to Court's Order https://ecf.flsd.useourts.govicgi-bin/DktRpt.p17945531146089634-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175302

CM/Fa -,Live Database - flsd Page 5 of 7 Requesting Government's Position filed by United States of America. "Sue ly_ IM6/8/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. IM) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 0x'29/2009 25 r RESPONSE in Opposition re (90 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identify Doe in Style of Case and in Third-Party Subpoenas, (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 26 ORDER STRIKING (124 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, 105 in 9:08-cv-80811- KAM, 74 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM, 72 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 106 in 9:08- cv-80232-KAM, 123 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM, 35 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 25 in 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, 60 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 22 in 9:09-cv- 80656-KAM, 107 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM) Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101 DO NOT FILE IN EVERY EPSTEIN CASE. SEE ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/29/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08- cv-80119-KAIVI et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 27 r MOTION for Leave to File UNDER SEAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO UNSEAL THE NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 28 n MOTION TO RESCHEDULE HEARINGRescheduling Hearing or Appear By Telephone by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Josefsberg, Robert) Modified on 6/1/2009 (tp). (Entered: 05/29/2009) 06/01/2009 29 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 28 Motion to Continue Hearing filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. The Filer selected the wrong motion relief(s) when docketing the Motion. The correction was made by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future motions filed must include all applicable relief events. (tp) (Entered: 06/01/2009) 06/01/2009 30 ORDER STRIKING (28 in 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, 126 in 9:08-cv-80380- KAM, 109 in 9:08-cv-80232-KAM, 25 in 9:09-cv-80656-ICAM, 77 in 9:08- cv-80993-KAM, 38 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 110 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM, 63 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 75 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 108 in 9:08-cv- 80811-KAM) Motion to Continue Hearing filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101, (76 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM, 109 in 9:08-cv-80381-ICAM, 108 in 9:08-cv-80232-KAM, 62 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 125 in 9:08-cv- 80380-KAM, 74 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 24 in 9:09-cv-80656-KAM, 37 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 107 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM, 27 in 9:09-cv-80469- https://ecfpflsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/D1ctRpt.p17945531146089634-L801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175303

CM/Ecl; ,-,Live Database - flsd Page 6 of 7 • KAM) Motion for Leave to File, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. THESE DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE FILED ONLY IN 08-80119. SEE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/1/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 06/01/2009) 06/01/2009 31 r REPLY to Response to Motion re 13 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss I ComplaintDefendant's MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 06/01/2009) 06/04/2009 32 r REPLY to Response to Motion re (113 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Plaintiffs MOTION Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No- Contact Order Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Reply to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Response to Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for a No-Contact Order filed by Jane Doe No. 101, Jane Doe No. 102. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 06/04/2009 33 ORDER STRIKING (112 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM, 111 in 9:08-cv-80232- KAM, 136 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM, 111 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM, 128 in 9:08-cv-80380-ICAM, 65 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 79 in 9:08-cv-80893- KAM, 42 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 27 in 9:09-cv-80656-KAM, 32 in 9:09- cv-80469-KAM, 79 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM) Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101 Document stricken for failure to follow Court's orders. DO NOT FILE A DOCUMENT IN EVERY EPSTEIN CASE if it is to be filed only in 08-80119. See Case Management Order and contact CM/ECF Support for assistance in proper filing.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/4/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119- ICAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 06/08/2009 34 r RESPONSE to Motion re (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) filed by Jane Doe. Replies due by 6/18/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/08/2009 35 r NOTICE by Jane Doe re (113 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Plaintiffs MOTION Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No-Contact Order -Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 Notice of Joinder Associated Cases: 9:08- cv-80119-KAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/08/2009) View Selected or Download Selected PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt https://ed.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17945531146089634-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175304

CM/ECI7 Live Database - flsd Page 7 of 7 06/10/2009 14:29:53 PACER Login: du4480 Client Code: Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 9:09-cv-80469- ICAM Billable Pages: 4 Cost: 0.32 https://ect flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17945531146089634-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175305

CM/ECF - 1 ive Database - flsd Page 1 of 9 U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Doe No. 101 v. Epstein Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Lead case: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM Member case: (View Member Case) Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101 V. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Date Filed: 04/17/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question represented by Katherine Warthen Ezell Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al City National Bank Building 25 W Flagler Street Suite 800 Miami FL 33130-1780 Fax: Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robert,. Josefsberg Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al City National Bank Building 25 W Flagler Street Suite 800 Miami FL 33130-1780 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Michael James Pike Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LRJ https://ectflsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17716393569552562-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175306

CMLECF - Live Database - flsd Page 2 of 9 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Fax: 515-3148 Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robert Deweese Critton , Jr. Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Amiens United States of America represented by Fax: Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jay P. Leikowitz Kirkland & Ellis 655 15th Street NW Suite 1200 Washin on DC 20005 Email: PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michael D. Shumsky Kirkland & Ellis 655 15th Street NW Suite 1200 hin on DC 20005 Email: [email protected] PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED United States Attorney's Office 500 East Broward Blvd https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.govicgi-binMktRpt.p17716393569552562-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175307

CM/ECP - icive Database - flsd Page 3 of 9 7th Floor Ft Lauderdale , FL 33394 ext. 3546 Fax: 356-7336 Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed # clear Docket Text 04/17/2009 1 r 1.o MB COMPLAINT and Demand for Jury Trial against Jeffrey Epstein. Filing fee $ 350.00. Receipt#: 999318, filed by Jane Doe No. 101.(asl) (Entered: 04/20/2009) 04/17/2009 2 r 38.5 KB Summons Issued as to Jeffrey Epstein. (as!) (Entered: 04/20/2009) 04/17/2009 3 Sealed Document. (igo) (Entered: 04/20/2009) 04/17/2009 4 Sealed Document. (igo) (Entered: 04/20/2009) 04/21/2009 5_ r 63.6 KB Order Requiring Counsel to Confer and File Joint Scheduling Report. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 4/21/2009. (ir) (Entered: 04/21/2009) 04/28/2009 6 r 60.2 KB ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why cases should not be consolidated for discovery purposes Show Cause Response due by 5/5/2009.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 4/28/2009. (cqs) (Entered: 04/29/2009) 05/01/2009 7 r 773 KB First AMENDED COMPLAINT and Demand for Jury Trial, filed by Jane Doe No. 101.(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/01/2009) 05/01/2009 8 r 173 KB RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Jane Doe No. 101. (Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/01/2009) 05/01/2009 9 ri 61.2 KB First AMENDED COMPLAINT and Demand For Jury Trial, filed by Jane Doe No. 101.(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/01/2009) 05/04/2009 io r 1472 KB NOTICE of Striking 7 Amended Complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 101 by Jane Doe No. 101 (Ezell, Katherine) Modified on 5/6/2009 (1s). (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/04/2009 11 r 126.7 KB Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 9 Amended Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/04/2009) https://ectilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716393569552562-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175308

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 4 of 9 05/04/2009 12 r 268.7 KB MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 6 Order to Show Cause by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/05/2009 13 ENDORSED ORDER granting 11 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint. Jeffrey Epstein response due 5/26/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/5/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/05/2009) 05/06/2009 14 r 342.6 KB NOTICE by Jane Doe No. 101 Notice of Filing (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Proceed Anonymously and Incorporated Memorandum of Law)(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/06/2009) 05/07/2009 15 17 "A KB NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Robert Deweese Critton, Jr on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/07/2009) 05/11/2009 16 r " ?dB RESPONSE/REPLY to 14 Notice (Other) Opposition to Motion to Proceed Anonymously by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/11/2009) 05/11/2009 17 MOTION to Compel and/or identifr Jane doe #101 in the style of this case and motion to identifr Jane doe #101 in the third party subpoenas for purposes of discovery with incorporated memorandum of law by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 5/29/2009 (see docket entry 16 for imageXtas) (Entered: 05/12/2009) 05/14/2009 Cases associated. (dg) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 18 r 106.5 KB ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES. Hereinafter all motions and other court filings that relate to discovery and all procedural motions that relate to multiple cases shall be styled with all of the case names and numbers and shall be filed in Case No. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (ir) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 12 r a ORDER REQUESTING UNITED STATES PROVIDE POSITION TO MOTION TO STAY. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Motion to Stay DE 51) Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (ir) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 20 ORDER terminating 17 Motion to Compel. See Order consolidating cases. See procedural motions pending: DE 91 in 08-80119.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/18/2009 21 r 148.9 KB Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/18/2009) 05/19/2009 22 ENDORSED ORDER granting 21 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/19/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/19/2009) hnps://cciflsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17716393569552562-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175309

CM/ECE - Live Database - flsd Page 5 of 9 05/20/2009 23 r 363.1 Ks NOTICE by . of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Compel And/Or 'den* . in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identift . in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, Or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponte, With Inorporated Memorandum of Law Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Hill, Jack) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/20/2009 24 ORDER STRIKING in all Epstein cases EXCEPT case no. 08-80119: Notice by . of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to Epstein's Motion to Compel and/or Identify. This Notice should only be filed in 08-80119, not in all of the Epstein cases.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/20/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/21/2009 25 r 273.7 KB MOTION for Leave to Appear Limited Appearance Pro Hac Vice by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 6/8/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Certification Certification of Jay P. Leflcowitz, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion for Limited Appearance of Jay P. Lefkowitz) (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/21/2009) 05/21/2009 26 r; 267.2 KB MOTION for Leave to Appear Limited Appearance Pro Hac Vice by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 6/8/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Shtunsky, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion for Limited Appearance of Michael D. Shumsky)(Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/21/2009) 05/26/2009 27 Clerks Notice of Instruction to Filer Regarding Pro Hac Vice Motion. Pursuant to 2B in the Administrative Procedures, a motion to make a limited appearance must be filed in the conventional manner along with the applicable filing fee. LOCAL COUNSEL IS INSTRUCTED TO 1. FILE A NOTICE TO STRIKE DE# 26 MOTION for Leave to Appear Limited Appearance Pro Hac Vice filed by Jeffrey Epstein, 25 MOTION for Leave to Appear Limited Appearance Pro Hac Vice filed by Jeffrey Epstein AND 2. CONVENTIONALLY FILE AN ORIGINAL MOTION TO MAKE A LIMITED APPEARANCE ALONG WITH THE APPLICABLE FILING FEE. (1s) (Entered: 05/26/2009) 05/26/2009 28 O 1.7 m s Plaintiffs MOTION to Preserve Evidence Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Jane Doe No. 101, Jane Doe No. 102. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3. Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, 9:09-cv-80591- KAM, 9:09-cv-80656-KAM(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/26/2009) 05/26/2009 29 r ms Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 7 Amended Complaint or in the Alternative, for a More Definate Statement by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 6/12/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B"XCritton, Robert) (Entered: 05/26/2009) https://ecf.flscLuscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17716393569552562-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175310

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 6 of 9 05/27/2009 30 ORDER terminating(28) Motion to Preserve Evidence in case 9:09-cv- 80591-ICAM; terminating(16) Motion to Preserve Evidence in case 9:09- cv-80656-KAM This motion is pending ONLY in case no. 08-80119.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/27/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 05/27/2009) 05/27/2009 31 r sz.o KB NOTICE by Jane Doe re (111 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (91 in 9:08-cv- 80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90)Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (91 in 9:08-cv- 80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. (Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 05/27/2009) 05/28/2009 32 ORDER STRIKING Notice by Jane Doe in all Epstein cases EXCEPT in case 08-80119. This Notice should only be filed in 08-80119, not in all of the Epstein cases... Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/28/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/28/2009) 05/29/2009 33 r 11.6 ICB NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by . on behalf of United States of America Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. l: , n (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 M r 3.7 Ks RESPONSE to Motion re (72 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (62) Amended Complaint, (57 in 9:08-cv-80232- KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (50) Amended Complaint, (24 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (1) Complaint, (23 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (18) Amended Complaint, (22 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (19) Amended Complaint, (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint, (68 in 9:08-cv-80381- KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (60) Amended Complaint, (51 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (40) Amended Complaint and or Continue Action Filed Pursuant to Court's Order Requesting Government's Position filed by United States of America. liS luelL6/8/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. MM) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 35 ri 433 KB RESPONSE in Opposition re (90 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identify Doe in Style of Case and in Third-Party Subpoenas, (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al.(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 36 ORDER STRIKING (124 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, 105 in 9:08-cv-80811- https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRptp17716393569552562-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175311

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 7 of 9 KAM, 74 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM, 72 in 9:08-cv-80893-ICAM, 106 in 9:08- cv-80232-KAM, 123 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM, 35 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 25 in 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, 60 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 22 in 9:09-cv- 80656-KAM, 107 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM) Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101 DO NOT FILE IN EVERY EPSTEIN CASE. SEE ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/29/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08- cv-80119-ICAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 37 n 24.5 KB MOTION for Leave to File UNDER SEAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO UNSEAL THE NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 38 r., 19.5 KB MOTION for Hearing MOTION TO RESCHEDULE HEARING by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Josefsberg, Robert) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 06/01/2009 39 ORDER STRIKING (28 in 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, 126 in 9:08-cv-80380- KAM, 109 in 9:08-cv-80232-KAM, 25 in 9:09-cv-80656-KAM, 77 in 9:08- cv-80993-KAM, 38 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 110 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM, 63 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 75 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 108 in 9:08-cv- 80811-KAM) Motion to Continue Hearing filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101, (76 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM, 109 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM, 108 in 9:08-cv-80232-KAM, 62 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 125 in 9:08-cv- 80380-ICAM, 74 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 24 in 9:09-cv-80656-KAM, 37 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 107 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM, 27 in 9:09-cv-80469- KAM) Motion for Leave to File, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. THESE DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE FILED ONLY IN 08-80119. SEE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/1/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 06/01/2009) 06/04/2009 41 r 281.7 KB MOTION for Limited Appearance, Consent to Designation and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filings for Michael D. Shumsky, Filing Fee $75.00, Receipt #725905. (ow) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 06/04/2009 41 r 272.3 KB MOTION for Limited Appearance, Consent to Designation and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filings for Jay P. Lefkowitz, Filing Fee $75.00, Receipt #725904. (cw) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 06/04/2009 42 r 349.0 KB REPLY to Response to Motion re (113 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Plaintiffs MOTION Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No- Contact Order Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Reply to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Response to Plaintiffi Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for a No-Contact Order filed by Jane Doe No. 101, Jane Doe No. 102. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 06/04/2009) https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17716393569552562-L 801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175312

CM/ECF - Lave Database - flsd Page 8 of 9 06/04/2009 43 ORDER STRIKING (112 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM, 111 in 9:08-cv-80232- KAM, 136 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM, 111 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM, 128 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM, 65 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 79 in 9:08-cv-80893- KAM, 42 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 27 in 9:09-cv-80656-KAM, 32 in 9:09- cv-80469-KAM, 79 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM) Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101 Document stricken for failure to follow Court's orders. DO NOT FILE A DOCUMENT IN EVERY EPSTEIN CASE if it is to be filed only in 08-80119. See Case Management Order and contact CM/ECF Support for assistance in proper filing.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/4/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 06/07/2009 47 r KB 54 A ORDER granting 40 Motion for Limited Appearance, Consent to Designation and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filings. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/7/2009. (ail) (Entered: 06/09/2009) 06/08/2009 44 r 3.8 ' RESPONSE to Motion re (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) filed by Jane Doe. Replies due by 6/18/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/08/2009 45 n 106.1 KB NOTICE by Jane Doe re (113 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Plaintiffs MOTION Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No- Contact Order :Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 Notice of Joinder Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/08/2009 46 r 53A KB ORDER granting 41. Motion for Limited Appearance, Consent to Designation and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filings. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/8/2009. (ail) (Entered: 06/09/2009) 06/09/2009 48 r 22o.1 KB Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 29 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 7 Amended Complaint or in the Alternative, for a More Definate StatementDefendant's MOTION to Dismiss 7 Amended Complaint or in the Alternative, for a More Definate Statement Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 10I's Motion for Enlargement of Time and Page Limits for Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement by Jane Doe No. 101. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed OrderXEzell, Katherine) (Entered: 06/09/2009) 06/09/2009 51 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jane Doe No. 101. SEE IMAGE 48 (ail) (Entered: 06/10/2009) 06/10/2009 49 ENDORSED ORDER granting 48 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re 29 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 7 Amended Complaint or https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716393569552562-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175313