CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 1 of 21 LRJ, MEDREQ, REF_DISCOV U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80119-1CAM Doe v. Epstein Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson Member case: (View Member Case) Case: 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Cause: 28:1391 Personal Injury Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other Jurisdiction: Diversity • represented by Adam D. 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 NM= Fax LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stuart S. Mermelstein Mermelstein & Horowitz PA 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami FL 33160 LEAD ATTORNEY https://ecIfIsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175589

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 2 of 21 V. Consol Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 102 Como] Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101 Consolrlabitiff Jane Doe 11 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Katherine Warthen Ezell Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al City National Bank Building 25 W Flagler Street Suite 800 Miami , FL 33130-1780 ax: Emai LEAD ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robed I Josefsberg Podhurs rseck Josefsberg et al City National Bank Building 25 W Flagler Street Suite 800 Miami , FL 33130-1780 'ax: Email LEAD ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Katherine Warthen Ezell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robert Josefsberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Isidro Manuel Garcia Garcia Elkins & Boehringer 224 Datura Avenue Suite 900 West Palm Beach , FL 33401 ax: Email: https://eculsd.uscourts.govicgi-bin/DktRpt.p17482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175590

Chi/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 3 of 21 Consol Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 6 Consol Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 7 Consol Plaintiff Jane Doe LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Adam D. Horowitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jeffrey Marc Herman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stuart S. Mermelstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Adam D. Horowitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jeffrey Marc Herman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stuart S. Mermelstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Bradley James Edwards Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Blvd Suite 1650 Ft. Lauderdale , FL 33301 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul lassell Email: LEAD ATTORNEY https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.pl?482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175591

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 4 of 21 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stuart S. Mermelstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Consol Plaintiff represented by Jack Patrick Hill Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard PO Drawer 3626 , FL 33402-3626 Fax: 22/11.... Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Richard Horace Willits Richard H Willits PA 2290 10th Avenue North Suite 404 •L 33461 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Consealtintiff Jane Doe No. 5 Consol Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 represented by Adam D. Horowitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jeffrey Marc Herman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stuart S. Mermelstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Adam D. Horowitz https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175592

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 5 of 21 (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jeffrey Marc Herman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stuart S. Mermelstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Consol Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 3 V. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein represented by Adam D. Horowitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jeffrey Marc Herman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stuart S. Mermelstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 , FL 33401-5012 Fax: 8 Email: ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Martin G. Weinberg 20 Park Plaza 2116 Fax: 338-9538 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED https://ecfflsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/D1ctRpt.pl?482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175593

• CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 6 of 21 Michael James Pike Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm each , FL 33401-2918 Fax: 515-3148 Email: ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michael Ross Tein Lewis Tein 3059 Grand Avenue Suite 340 Coconut e , FL 33133 Fax: 442-6744 Email: TERMINATED: 05/20/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robert Deweese Critton , Jr. Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Auricus United States of America represented by Fax: Email: ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED e a es ome Office 500 East Broward Blvd 7th Floor uder , FL 33394 , ext. 3546 Fax: 3511S inimi Email: .gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed # Docket Text 02/06/2008 1 COMPLAINT against Jeffrey Epstein; Filing fee $ 350. Receipt#: 542215, filed by Jane Doe No.2.(1k) (Entered: 02/06/2008) https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175594

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 7 of 21 02/06/2008 2 Summons Issued as to Jeffrey Epstein. (Ik) (Entered: 02/06/2008) 02/08/2008 a Order Requiring Counsel to Confer and Joint Scheduling Report.Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 2/8/08.(ir) (Entered: 02/08/2008) 05/22/2008 4 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Jeffrey Epstein on May 7, 2008, filed by Jane Doe. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/22/2008) 05/22/2008 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe. Jeffrey Epstein served on 5/7/2008, Answer due 5/27/2008. (Ik) (Entered: 05/27/2008) 05/27/2008 6 NOTICE of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer: re 4 Affidavit of Service filed by Jane Doe. Error: Wrong Event Selected; Correction=Redocketed as "Summons returned executed", D.E. 5 . Instruction to Filerin the future please select "summons returned executed" as the proper Event. (Ik) (Entered: 05/27/2008) 05/29/2008 7 Plaintiffs MOTION for Entry of Default by Clerk Against Defendant by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Default Ord)(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 05/29/2008) 06/06/2008 8 CLERK'S NOTICE Denying for Improper Service 2 Plaintiffs MOTION for Entry of Default by Clerk Against Defendant (tp) (Entered: 06/06/2008) 06/11/2008 9 Plaintiffs MOTION to Compel Clerk to Enter Default Against Defendant, or Alternatively, for an Enlgargement of Time to Serve Process, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Jane Doe. Responses due by 6/30/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/11/2008) 06/13/2008 IQ NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jack Alan Goldberger on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein (Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 06/13/2008) 06/13/2008 11 RESPONSE to Motion re 9 Plaintiffs MOTION to Compel Clerk to Enter Default Against Defendant, or Alternatively, for an Enlgargement of Time to Serve Process, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Jeffrey Epstein. Replies due by 6/23/2008. (Attachments: # I Affidavit for Richard Bamett)(Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 06/13/2008) 06/20/2008 12 Defendant's MOTION to Stay by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 7/10/2008 (Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 06/20/2008) 06/20/2008 la Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond To Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. (Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 06/20/2008) 06/24/2008 J4 MEMORANDUM in Support re 9 Plaintiffs MOTION to Compel Clerk to Enter Default Against Defendant, or Alternatively, for an Enlgargement of Time to Serve Process, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Jane Doe. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/24/2008) 06/30/2008 15 NOTICE by Jeffrey Epstein Of Filing Deposition (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 06/30/2008) https://ecIfIsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pft482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175595

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 8 of 21 07/01/2008 14 NOTICE by Jeffrey Epstein Concerning Motion To Stay [DE 12] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 07/01/2008) 07/08/2008 17 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Michael Ross Tein on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein (Tein, Michael) (Entered: 07/08/2008) 07/10/2008 111 Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 12 Defendant's MOTION to Stay by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 07/10/2008) 07/10/2008 19 Sealed Document. (yc) UNSEALED see DE 23 . Modified on 7/17/2008 (bs). (Entered: 07/10/2008) 07/10/2008 20 Sealed Document. (yc) UNSEALED see DE 24 . Modified on 7/17/2008 (bs). (Entered: 07/10/2008) 07/10/2008 21 UNSEALED MOTION to Seal by Jeffrey Epstein. (previously filed as 19 sealed document) (bs) (Entered: 07/17/2008) 07/10/2008 24 UNSEALED Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action by Jeffrey Epstein (previously filed as 20 sealed document) (bs) (Entered: 07/17/2008) 07/16/2008 21 ORDER denying motion to file Ex Parte and Under Seal. The clerk shall unseal DE 19 and 20 and make them available for inspection through CM/ECF at the earliest possible time. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/16/08. (ir) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/17/2008: # 1 docket sheet) (bs). (Entered: 07/16/2008) 07/16/2008 22 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why default should not be entered against Defendant. Show Cause Response due by 7/28/2008. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/16/08. (ir) (Entered: 07/16/2008) 07/18/2008 21 RESPONSE to Motion rela Defendant's MOTION to Stay and Memorandum of Law filed by Jane Doe. Replies due by 7/28/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/18/2008) 07/21/2008 26 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Jeffrey M. Herman. re 22 Order to Show Cause and Service of Process by Jane Doe. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/25/2008 2Z MOTION for Hearing Defendant's Request for Oral Argument by Jeffrey Epstein. (Tein, Michael) (Entered: 07/25/2008) 07/25/2008 28 ORDER denying 2 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/25/08. (ir) (Entered: 07/25/2008) 07/28/2008 29 UNSEALED Sealed Document. (tas) -Modified on 8/12/2008 "For Image please see DE # 31 **(gp). (Entered: 07/28/2008) 07/28/2008 30 UNSEALED Sealed Document. (tas) -Modified on 8/12/2008 **For Image please see DE # a ** (gp). (Entered: 07/28/2008) 07/28/2008 31 MOTION to File Under Seal Reply to Plaintiffs' responses to his motions for stay, under seal by Jeffrey Epstein. {Originally DE # 29 } (gp) Modified on 8/12/2008 (gp). (Entered: 08/12/2008) https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DIctRpt.pl?482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175596

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 9 of 21 07/28/2008 a REPLY to Response to Motion re 12 Defendant's MOTION to Stay filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Originally DE # 30 } (gp) (Entered: 08/12/2008) 07/29/2008 31 NOTICE by Jeffrey Epstein Defendant's Notice of Filing Exhibits (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Tein, Michael) (Entered: 07/29/2008) 07/30/2008 32 NOTICE by Jeffrey Epstein Waiver of Service (Tein, Michael) (Entered: 07/30/2008) 08/05/2008 33. ORDER denying 12 Motion to Stay; granting nunc pro tune 1$ Motion for Extension of Time to Respond ; denying as moot 27 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 8/4/08. (ir) (Entered: 08/05/2008) 08/05/2008 34 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL. The Clerk shall unseal DE 30 Sealed Document, 29 Sealed Document and make them available for public inspection through CM/ECF. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 8/4/08. (ir) (Entered: 08/05/2008) 08/06/2008 35 Joint MOTION to Approve Stipulation for Acceptance of Service of Process and Agreed Date for Defendant's Response to Complaints by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Order Approving Stipulation)(Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/06/2008) 08/07/2008 36 ENDORSED ORDER granting 35 Motion to approve stipulation for acceptance of service of process and agreed date for defendant's responses to complaints. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 8/6/08. (ir) (Entered: 08/07/2008) 08/07/2008 Reset Answer Due Deadline: Jeffrey Epstein response due 9/4/2008. (ir) (Entered: 08/07/2008) 08/27/2008 39 NOTICE by Jeffrey Epstein (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 08/27/2008) 08/27/2008 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Michael James Pike, Robert Deweese Critton, Jr on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein See DE 39 for image (tp) (Entered: 08/28/2008) 08/28/2008 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 39 Notice (Other) filed by Jeffrey Epstein. Error - Wrong Event Selected; Correction - Redocketed by Clerk as Notice of Attorney Appearance. Instruction to Filer - In the future, please select the proper event. It is not necessary to refile this document (tp) (Entered: 08/28/2008) 09/04/2008 4Q Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 9/22/2008 (rein, Michael) (Entered: 09/04/2008) 09/22/2008 41 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 4Q Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss t Complaint filed by Jane Doe. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/22/2008) 09/22/2008 42 AMENDED COMPLAINT, filed by Jane Doe.(Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/22/2008) 09/23/2008 43 ORDER denying as moot 4A) Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 13 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRptpl?482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175597

CM/ECI: - Live Database - flsd Page 10 of 21 Marra on 9/23/08. (ir) (Entered: 09/23/2008) 09/25/2008 44 SCHEDULING REPORT- Rule 26(f). (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/25/2008) 09/30/2008 45 SCHEDULING ORDER: Jury Trial set for 1/25/2010 09:00 AM in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Kenneth A. Marra. Calendar Call set for 1/22/2010 10:00 AM in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Kenneth A. Marra., Amended Pleadings due by 12/1/2008. Discovery due by 8/3/2009. Motions due by 8/31/2009. 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 9/29/08. (ir) (Entered: 09/30/2008) 10/06/2008 46 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 42 Amended Complaint and for More Definite Statement by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 10/24/2008 (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 10/06/2008) 10/24/2008 4/ Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 46 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 42 Amended Complaint and for More Definite Statement by Jane Doe. (Attachments: ti I Text of Proposed Order) (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/24/2008) 10/27/2008 41 ORDER granting (47 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (46) Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss (42) Amended Complaint and for More Definite Statement ( Responses due by 10/31/2008) in case 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM; granting (43) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (47 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (46) Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss (42) Amended Complaint and for More Definite Statement in case 9:08-cv-80232-ICAM; granting (55) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (47 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (46) Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss (42) Amended Complaint and for More Definite Statement in case 9:08-cv-80380-ICAM; granting (53) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (47 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (46) Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss (42) Amended Complaint and for More Definite Statement in case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM in case 9:08-ev-80119-ICAM. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 10/24/2008. (ir) (Entered: 10/27/2008) 10/28/2008 Reset Deadlines as to Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss (49) Amended Complaint and for More Definite Statement. Responses due by 10/31/2008. (ir) (Entered: 10/28/2008) 10/31/2008 49 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 4.6 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 42 Amended Complaint and for More Definite Statement filed by Jane Doe. (Attachments: i4 I Exhibit A)(Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/31/2008) 11/10/2008 50 RESPONSE/REPLY to 42 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 11/10/2008) 11/10/2008 51 REPLY to Response to Motion it 44 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 42 https://ectflsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175598

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 11 of 21 Amended Complaint and for More Definite Statement filed by Jeffrey Epstein. See DE 50 for image (tp) (Entered: 11/13/2008) 11/13/2008 52 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 5Q Response/Reply (Other) filed by Jeffrey Epstein. Error - Wrong Event Selected; Correction - Redocketed by Clerk as Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss". Instruction to Filer - In the future, please select the proper event. It is not necessary to refile this document. (tp) (Entered: 11/13/2008) 12/30/2008 53 NOTICE by Jeffrey Epstein of Withdrawal as Co-Counsel (rein, Michael) (Entered: 12/30/2008) 02/12/2009 54 OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 46 Motion to Dismiss and Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 2/12/2009. (ir) (Entered: 02/12/2009) 02/23/2009 55 NOTICE by Jane Doe of Change of Name of Plaintiff's Counsel (Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 02/23/2009) 02/27/2009 5_6 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Second), filed by Jane Doe.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 02127/2009) 03/02/2009 5/ Plaintiffs MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support by Jane Doe. Responses due by 3/19/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # a Exhibit l)(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 03/02/2009) 03/04/2009 58 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 56 Amended Complaint with proposed Order by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 03/04/2009) 03/05/2009 59 ENDORSED ORDER granting la 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) 03/06/2009 60 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 57 Plaintiffs MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support with proposed Order by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 03/06/2009) 03/12/2009 61 ORDER granting O Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re 57 Plaintiffs MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support Responses due by 3/25/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson on 3/12/2009. (kza) (Entered: 03/12/2009) 03/18/2009 62 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages with proposed Order by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 03/18/2009) 03/25/2009 6,1 RESPONSE to Motion re 57 Plaintiffs MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support filed by Jeffrey Epstein. Replies lie by 4/6/2009. (Attachments: # I Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # a Exhibit M(Critton, Robert) (Entered: 03/25/2009) • https://ectflsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175599

Clvi/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 12 of 21 03/25/2009 64 ORDER Granting 62 Motion to Exceed Page Limitation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson on 3/24/2009. (sa) (Entered: 03/25/2009) 03/25/2009 65 Defendant's MOTION to Stay re 5¢ Amended Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. Respon s due by 4/13/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 2 ExhibitIXPike, Michael) (Entered: 03/25/2009) 03/26/2009 66 MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition ofJane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Mermelstein, Smart) (Entered: 03/26/2009) 04/02/2009 67 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP by Jeffrey Epstein. Respon due by 4/20/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # a Exhibit B, # a Exhibiti)(Critton, Robert) (Entered: 04/02/2009) 04/02/2009 61 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Answers to 1st Interrogs by Jeffrey Epstein. Respon due by 4/20/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, 11 a ExhibitB)(Critton, Robert) (Entered: 04/02/2009) 04/02/2009 62 Defendant's ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint (Second) by Jeffrey Epstein.(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 04/02/2009) 04/03/2009 n Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply as to 62 Response to Motion, to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 04/03/2009) 04/06/2009 71 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 66 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 by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 04/06/2009) 04/07/2009 72 ENDORSED ORDER granting 71 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re _6.6 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. Responses due by 4/13/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 4/7/2009. (ir) (Entered: 04/07/2009) 04/10/2009 73 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 66 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, 72 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer, (Amended) by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 04/10/2009) 04/13/2009 74 ENDORSED ORDER granting (73) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (66 in 9:08-cv-80119-1CAM) MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition ofJane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support in case 9:08-cv-80 I 1 9-ICAM; granting (65) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (66 in 9:08-ev-80119-ICAM) MOTION for Protective Order and https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175600

CM/E CF - Live Database - flsd Page 13 of 21 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-KAM; 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 ofJane 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 ZS Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # I Text of Proposed Order)(Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 04/13/2009) 04'14 ?0(l') 76 ENDORSED ORDER granting (75) 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-80119-KAM; granting (67) 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-80232-KAM; granting (82) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (65 in 9:08-cv- 80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay it (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) Defendant's 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- 80119-1CAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint in case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM in case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM. ( Responses due by 4/23/2009). Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 4/14/2009. (ir) (Entered: 04/14/2009) 04/16/2009 71 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 66 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, 74 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer 72 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer, by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 04/16/2009) 04/17/2009 78 ENDORSED ORDER granting (77) 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 ofJane 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 https://ectflsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DIctRpt.p17482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175601

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 14 of 21 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-ICAM) MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition ofJane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support in case 9:08-cv-80993-ICAM in case 9:08-cv- 80119-1CAM. ( Responses due by 4/24/2009). Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 4/17/2009. (ir) (Entered: 04/17/2009) 04/17/2009 22 RESPONSE to Motion re 66 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 filed by Jeffrey Epstein. Replies due by 4/27/2009. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 04/17/2009) 04/17/2009 $Q Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 62 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP, 6.8 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Answers to 1st Interrogs by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # I Text of Proposed Order)(Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 04/17/2009) 04/20/2009 81 MEMORANDUM in Support re 57 Plaintiffs MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support by Jane Doe. (Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 04/20/2009) 04/23/2009 82 RESPONSE in Opposition re 65 Defendant's MOTION to Stay re 5.6 Amended Complaint filed by Jane Doe. (Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 04/23/2009) 04/27/2009 8.1 ORDER Granting 7Q Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Reply Memoranda as to 61 Response to Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents. Reply due by 4/20/2009.Signed by Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson on 4/27/2009. (sa) (Entered: 04/27/2009) 04/27/2009 $4 ORDER Granting $Q Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response in Opposition to 62 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to First Request to Produce, 6$ Defendant's MOTION to Compel Answers to 1st Interrogatories. 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 85 MEMORANDUM in Support re 66 MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition ofJane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support by Jane Doe. (Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 04/27/2009) 04/29/2009 M. ORDER granting 65. 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 82 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 67 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP, 68 Defendant's https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175602

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 15 of 21 MOTION to Compel Answers to 1st Interrogs by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 04/29/2009) 05/04/2009 8_8 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re $¢ Order on Motion for Protective Order by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/05/2009 B1 Motion for Extension of Time to File REPLY to Response to Motion re 65 Defendant's MOTION to Stay re 16 Amended Complaint filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) Modified on 5/6/2009 (ir). (Entered: 05/05/2009) 05/05/2009 90 Defendant's MOTION to Compel !den* Doe in Style of Case and in Third- Party Subpoenas by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 5/22/2009 (Attachments: # I Exhibit Exhibit A)(Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/05/2009) 05/05/2009 D. Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third- Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 5/22/2009 (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/05/2009) 05/06/2009 92 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-ICAM) 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 it (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay it (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-80119-1CAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint in case 9:08-cv- 80381-ICAM; granting (46) Motion for Extension of Time to Reply re (65 in 9:08-ev-80119-1CAM) 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- cv-80119-ICAM. ( Replies due by 5/20/2009.). Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/5/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/06/2009) 05/06/2009 93 RESPONSE in Opposition re 18 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Answers to 1st Interrogs and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses filed by Jane Doe. (Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 05/06/2009) 05/06/2009 94 RESPONSE in Opposition re 62 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP , Overrule Objections and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses filed by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit AXHorowitz, Adam) (Entered: 05/06/2009) 05/11/2009 95 Defendant's MOTION for Order Requiring that plaintiff use Proper Case Style in all Filings by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) Modified on 5/12/2009 (Is). [Text modified by Clerk] (Entered: 05/11/2009) 05/12/2009 96 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 95 Defendant's MOTION Require Plaintiff to Use Proper Case Style filed by Jeffrey Epstein. Error - Docket text does not match document; Correction - Docket text modified by Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document. (Is) (Entered: 05/12/2009) https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175603

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 16 of 21 05/13/2009 91 RESPONSE/REPLY to 82 Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/13/2009) 05/14/2009 % 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 22 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 - 100 ORDER denying as moot 25 Motion. See Order consolidating cases.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. (Ic3) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/15/2009 101 Plaintiffs MOTIOEfapxtension of Time to File Response to Defendant's Motion to IdentifrEM. in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or AlternatIverlyjigtion to Dismiss Sua Sponte, With Incorporated Memorandum of Law byM... Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM, 9:08-cv-80811-KAM(Hill, Jack) (Entered: 05/15/2009) 05/18/2009 102 Defendant's 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-ICAM et al.(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/18/2009) 05/19/2009 103 ENDORSED ORDER granting 141 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re a Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90). Responses due by 5/26/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/18/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/19/2009) 05/19/2009 .1.(14 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-ICAM et al.(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/19/2009) 05/19/2009 11/5 MOTION Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Co-Counsel by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tein, Michael) Modified relief on 5/20/2009 (tp). (Entered: 05/19/2009) 05/20/2009 106 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 105 Motion for Leave to Withdraw as as Co-counsel filed by Jeffrey Epstein. 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: 05/20/2009) 05/20/2009 102 ORDER granting10.5 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Michael Ross Tein terminated. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/20/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/20/2009) https://ectflsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175604

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 17 of 21 05/20/2009 Ma NOTICE be. of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raise Lions to Defendant. Jetey Epstein's Motion to Ag And/Or IdentifyMf. in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identi . 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 109 ortataiSTRIKING in all Epstein cases EXCEPT case no. 08-80119: Notice be. 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 Cages: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/20/2009 110 RESPONSE/REPLY to 91 Response in Opposition to Motion To Compel Answers To Discovery by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachments: # I Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B")(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/21/2009 Ill 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) 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 112 NOTICE of Compliance with S.D.Fla.L.R.7.1(A)(3) by Jeffrey Epstein re 104 Defendant's MOTION to Strike Cases from Current Trial Docket filed by Jeffrey Epstein (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/22/2009) 05/2212009 .111 Plaintiffs MOTION Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No-Contact Order by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. (Attachments: # 1 Exhaj?it A - Portion to Plea Transcript, # 2 Exhibit B - 4/17/09 letter, ii 2 Exhibit i - 5/16/09 e-mail, # 4 Exhibit D - 5/18/09 letter, # 5 Exhibit E - 5/21/09 letter, # € Text of Proposed OrderXJosefsberg, Robert) (Entered: 05/22/2009) 05/26/2009 114 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", # a Text of Proposed Order) Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM, 9:09-cv-80591-ICAM, 9:09-cv- 80656-KAM(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/26/2009) 05/27/2009 II5 RESPONSE in Opposition re 101 Plaintiffs MO Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant's Motion to Identirfr in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponse, With Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachments: ii 1 Exhibit "A")(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/27/2009) 05/27/2009 114 NOTICE by Jane Doe it (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 https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175605

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd L 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 117 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) 05/28/2009 118 Notice of Supplemental Authority re 67 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP, 448 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Answers to 1st Interrog y Jeffrey Epstein (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # a Exhibit Ill(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/28/2009) 05/28/2009 1_19 OP VIDag- , ranting 194 Motion to Continue as to Jane Does 2-7 and reserved as to allii and Jane Doe 80893. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/28/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/28/2009) 05/29/2009 ID NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Marie a on behalf of 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. 05129/2009) alit Marrerra(Enteredi"tedCases: 05/29/2009 DJ RESPONSE to Motion re (72 in 9:08-cv-80380-ICAM) 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-ICAM) 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- 80993-1CAM) 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 A ' ligailue by 6/8/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. Marie) (Entered: 05/29/2009) IIII 05/29/2009 122 ENDORSED ORDER granting 1.11 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re 9J Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90). Jane Does 2-7 Responses due by 6/11/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/28/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 123 NOTICE by Jeffrey Epstein re .19_2 Defendant's 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-ICAM) Response in Opposition to MotionDefendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply as to (39 in 9:08-cv-80994-ICAM) Response in Opposition to Motion, (40 in 9:08-cv- 80994-KAM) Response in Opposition to Motion (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed onierXPike, Michael) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 124 RESPONSE in Opposition re (90 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175606

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 19 of 21 MOTION to Compel Identifi 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 125 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-ICAM, 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- 1CAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 12¢ ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 0 Defendant's MOTION to Stay re 5.6 Amended Complaint : Motion Hearing set for 6/12/2009 10:00 AM in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Kenneth A. Marra. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/29/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 122 RESPONSE to Motion re al Plaintiffs MOTION Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No-Contact Order filed by Jeffrey Epstein. Replies due by 6/8/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 128 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 122 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 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) 06/01/2009 130 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 129 Motion to Reschedule Hearing. The hearing will not be reset. However, Robert Josefsberg may r tel honically. Mr. Josefsberg shall contact the courtroom deputy at chambers at least 24 hours prior to the hearing.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 06/01/09. (1c3) (Entered: 06/01/2009) 06/01/2009 131 Sealed Document. (igo) (Entered: 06/02/2009) 06/01/2009 n2 ORDER Granting R2 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Compel. Response due by 5/6/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson on 6/1/2009. (sa) (Entered: 06/02/2009) https://ectflsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175607

CWECF - Live Database - flsd 1 Page 20 of 21 06/03/2009 na Defendant's MOTION for Limited Admission by Telephone by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Text of Proposed Order Order) (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 06/03/2009) 06/03/2009 134 ORDER Granting 1Q2 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time until 5/20/09 to file a Reply to Plaintiffs' Jane Does 2-7 Responses in Opposition to Motion to Compel Answers to First set of Interrogatories and First Request to Produce. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson on 6/3/2009. (sa) (Entered: 06/03/2009) 06/03/2009 ,.. 135 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# 133 Defendant's MOTION for Limited Admission by Telephone filed by Jeffrey Epstein AND 2. CONVENTIONALLY FILE AN ORIGINAL MOTION TO MAKE A LIMITED APPEARANCE ALONG WITH THE APPLICABLE FILING FEE. (cw) (Entered: 06/03/2009) 06/04/2009 13n 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) 06/04/2009 137 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-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 CWECF 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) 06/04/2009 138 ORDER denying 133 Motion for Limited Admission by telephone. See Clerks Office's instructions in DE 135. The attorneys may file motions to appear telephonically at the hearing if their pro hac vice motions, filed conventionally 06/04/09, are granted.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 06/04/2009. (Ic3) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 06/05/2009 132 NOTICE of Striking 133 Defendant's MOTION for Limited Admission by Telephone filed by Jeffrey Epstein by Jeffrey Epstein (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 06/05/2009) 06/05/2009 140 MOTION for Limited Appearance by Telephone for Martin G. Weinberg, Filing Fee $75.00, Receipt #725916. (cw) (Entered: 06/05/2009) 06/05/2009 141 STRICKEN BY DE 142 Notice of Supplemental Authority re 124 Response https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DIctRpt.p17482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175608

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 21 of 21 in Opposition to Motion, 11,1 Plaintiffs MOTION Plaintiffi Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No-Contact Order, a Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) by Jeffrey Epstein (Pike, Michael) Modified on 6/8/2009 (tp). (Entered: 06/05/2009) 06/05/2009 142 NOTICE of Striking 141 Notice of Supplemental Authority, filed by Jeffrey Epstein by Jeffrey Epstein (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 06/05/2009) 06/05/2009 14,1 Notice of Supplemental Authority re 24 Response in Opposition to Motion, 6,2 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP, 9 Response in Opposition to Motion, 119 Response/Reply (Other), 68 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Answers to 1st Interrogs by Jeffrey Epstein (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 06/05/2009) 06/08/2009 144 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: # I Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119- ICAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/08/2009 14,E NOTICE by Jane Doe re (113 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Plaintiffs MOTION Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe IO2's Motion for No-Contact Order -Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 Notice of Joinder Associated Cases: 9:08-ev-80119- KAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/08/2009 14k RESPONSE in Opposition re 144 Defendant's MOTION to Strike Cases from Current Trial Docket filed by Jane Doe. (Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/08/2009 147 RESPONSE in Opposition re 104 Defendant's MOTION to Strike Cases from Current Trial Docket filed by .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Hill, Jack) (Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/09/2009 . 14$ Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct e Answer to Amended Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 6/26/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # a Text of Proposed Order Order)(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 06/09/2009) PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 06/09/2009 15:28:57 PACER Login: du4480 Client Code: Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: K 9:Am08-c v-80119- rBillable Pages: 16 Cost: 1.28 • https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.p17482840805650403-L_801_0-1 6/9/2009 EFTA00175609

Case 9:08-cv-80, 1-KAM Document 40 Entered 'LSD Docket 0; ,/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7.1(A) of the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida, moves to dismiss Count I of plaintiff's complaint,' and states as follows: ' The time to answer the remaining allegations of the complaint is tolled pending the Court's ruling on the present motion. See Beaulieu I Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of W. Fla., No. 3:07cv30/RV/BMT, 2007 WI, 2020161, * 2 (N. . Fla. July 9, 2007) (holding that defendant's partial motion to dismiss "automatically extends its time to answer . . . until after the court has ruled on [its] motion to dismiss"); Finnegan t Univ. of Rochester Med. Ctr., 180 F.R.D. 247, 249 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) (concluding "that the ling of a motion that only addresses part of a complaint suspends the time to res nd to the entire complaint, not just to the claims that are the subject of the motion"); Schwartz Berry College, Inc., No. Civ.A. 4:96CV338-HLM, 1997 WL i 579166, *1 (N.D. Ga. July 3, 1 7) (noting that there is significant case law to support the position that "when a defendant files a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, addressing only some of the claims contained in the plaintiff's complaint, the defendant is not required to file an answer until the court rules on the motion to dismiss"). EFTA00175610

Case 9:08-cv-8C \ -KAM Document 40 Entered a 'LSD Docket 0: /2008 Page 2 of 8 CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT This action arises out of the alleged assault of the plaintiff. According to the allegations in her complaint, the plaintiff went to Mr. Epstein's house to give him "a massage for monetary compensation" (Compl. ¶ 12), where Mr. Epstein allegedly assaulted her "in violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes." (Compl. ¶ 18). The plaintiff tries to assert a claim for sexual assault (Compl. ¶¶ 15-19.) This theory of liability, however, cannot be supported by the allegations in the complaint. In fact, even if everything in the complaint were true, recovery against Jeffrey Epstein, for Count I, under any formulation, is impossible under Florida law. Accordingly, this count must be dismissed. ARGUMENT A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) should be granted when a court cannot identify "each of the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Snow'. DirectTV, Inc., 450 F.3d 1314, 1320 (I lth Cir. 2006) (quoting Roe'. Aware Woman Ctr. For Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 684 (11th Cir. 2001)). Moreover, a court should dismiss a complaint "when, on the basis of a dispositive issue of law, no construction of the factual allegations will support a cause of action." Marshall County Bd. of Educ. I. Marshal County Gas Dist, 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 1993). "[T]o survive a 2 EFTA00175611

Case 9:08-cv-80 '-KAM Document 40 Entered I 'LSD Docket Ot /2008 Page 3 of 8 CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must do more than merely state legal conclusions; they are required to allege some specific factual bases for those conclusions . . ." Holt'. Grist, No. 06-14617, 2007 WI, 1156938, *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 19, 2007). As such, "conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal." Snow, 450 F.3d at 1320. I. Count I Fails to State a Cause of Action For Assault Recognized by Florida Law. The plaintiff attempts to plead a cause of action against Mr. Epstein for "sexual assault" based on a "violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes"2 for the "lewd and lascivious acts committed by Epstein upon Jane Doe." (Compl. 18.) Plaintiff cannot assert a cause of action for "violation of Chapter 800, Florida Statutes" because there is no private right of action under that Chapter. See generally Am. Home Assurance Co." Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005) (observing that "not every statutory violation carries a civil remedy" (citing Villazonl. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003)). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. l. Ferre, 636 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (King, (holding that violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to a civil cause of action for damages). 2 Chapter 800, Florida Statutes, is entitled, "Lewdness; Indecent Exposure." 3 EFTA00175612

Case 9:08-cv-80 -KAM Document 40 Entered I 'LSD Docket Of. /2008 Page 4 of 8 CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRAJJOHNSON Where a plaintiff brings a civil action pursuant to a criminal statute that provides no civil remedy, her complaint is properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. See Mantoothl. Richards, 557 So. 2d 646, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's claim for parental kidnapping where "the mentioned statutes concern only criminal violations and do not afford a civil remedy") (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Even if Chapter 800 provided a civil remedy (which it does not) the statute does not apply to the plaintiff. The statute prohibits sexual activity with or lewd or lascivious offenses against "a person . . . less than 16 years of age." § 800.04, Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added). By her own admission, the plaintiff was "approximately 16 years old." (Comp(. I 8.) (emphasis added). Plainly, the plaintiff falls outside of the scope of the statute's protection. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for sexual assault against Mr. Epstein, pursuant to a violation of Chapter 800, Florida Statutes, must be dismissed. Should the Court look beyond the plain language of the plaintiff's complaint and construe Count I as a claim for common-law assault, that claim would also fail. As the court explained in Lay" Kremer, 411 So. 2d 1347, 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), an assault is "an intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury to another by force, or force unlawfully directed toward another under such circumstances as to create a fear of imminent peril, coupled with the apparent 4 EFTA00175613

Case 9:08-cv-8a -KAM Document 40 Entered' LSD Docket OE /2008 Page 5 of 8 CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON present ability to effectuate the attempt." An assault thus requires "an affirmative act—a threat to use force, or the actual exertion of force." Sullivan, AIL Fed. Say. & Loan Assoc., 454 So. 2d 52, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (affirming dismissal of assault claim where there was no affirmative act). In this case, there is no such affirmative act. The only thing that Mr. Epstein is alleged to have said to the plaintiff is "to take off her clothes" and "to give him a massage." (Compl. ¶ 12.) These allegations fall far short of an "offer of corporal injury by force." There are no allegations that Jane Doe was placed in any fear of imminent peril. See Gatto 's. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (holding that where there was no evidence to show that Gatto was placed in fear of imminent peril, there was no assault). In fact, the plaintiff does not even allege that Mr. Epstein touched her. Thus, there was no assault. Accordingly, because the plaintiff has failed to plead a cause of action for assault recognized in Florida, Count I against Mr. Epstein must be dismissed. Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests that Count I of the plaintiff's complaint be dismissed. 5 EFTA00175614

Case 9:08-cv-80 -KAM Document 40 Entered I LSD Docket OS '2008 Page 6 of 8 CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Respectfully submitted, LEWIS TEIN, P.L. 3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Tel: Fax: By: /s/ Michael R. Thin GUY A. LEWIS MICHAEL R. TEIN ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Palm Florida 33401 Tel. Fax. By: Jack A. Goldberger Fla. Bar No. 262013 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTT1ER & COLEMAN, LLP 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Florida 33401 Tel. Fax. 6 EFTA00175615

Case 9:08-cv-80( •KAM Document 40 Entered d LSD Docket Ofd '2008 Page 7 of 8 CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON By: Robert D. Critton, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 224162 [email protected] Michael J. Pike, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Jetty Epstein CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1 Undersigned counsel has conferred in good faith with counsel for the plaintiff, who opposes the relief requested in this motion. /s/ Michael R. Tein Michael R. Tein CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 4, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all individuals on the following service list via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. /s/ Michael It Thin Michael R. Tein EFTA00175616

Case 9:08-cv-80( •KAM Document 40 Entered d LSD Docket OR 2008 Page 8 of 8 CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Service List Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Herman & Mennelstein, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 Miami Florida 33160 Fax: 8 EFTA00175617

Case 95118-cci-80i LKAM Document 56 Entered c. LSD Docket 02. 2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 2 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey Epstein, as follows: Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Jane Doe No. 2 is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 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 §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. This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 §1391(a) as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. - I - EFTA00175618

. Case 9:08-6-80( -KAM Document 56 Entered ci LSD Docket 02 2009 Page 2 of 8 Factual Allegations 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52 • years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. Thomas and Palm Beach, FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. 8. Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave them money. In or about 2004-2005, Jane Doe, then approximately 16 years old, fell into Epstein's trap and became one of his victims. 9. Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. Thomas. 10. Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. (Upon information and belief, the young girl who brought Jane Doe to Epstein was herself a minor victim of Epstein, and will therefore not be named in this Complaint). Under Epstein's plan, underage girls were recruited ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. The recruiter would be contacted when Epstein was planning to be at his Palm Beach residence or soon after he had arrived there. Epstein or someone on his behalf would direct the recruiter to bring one or more underage girls to the residence. The recruiter, upon information and belief, generally sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from western Palm Beach County who would be enticed by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session - and who were perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have - 2 - EFTA00175619

Case 9:08-u-80 -KAM Document 56 Entered J LSD Docket 02i 2009 Page 3 of 8 credibility if allegations of improper conduct were made. This was an important element of Epstein's plan. 11. Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Upon arrival at Epstein's mansion, the underage victim would be introduced to Epstein's assistant, who gathered the girl's personal information, including her name and telephone number. Ms. would then bring the girl up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to othcr furnishings. There were photographs of nude women lining the stairway hall and in the bedroom. The girl would then find herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. He would then remove his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to remove her clothes. Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including and the 12. Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, Jane Doe was recruited to give Epstcin a massage for monetary compensation. Jane was brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach. Once at the mansion, Jane was introduced to who led her up the flight of stairs to the room with the massage table. In this room, Epstein told Jane to take off her clothes and give him a massage. Jane kept her panties and bra on and complied with Epstein's instructions. Epstein wore only a towel around his waste. After a short period of time, Epstein removed the towel and rolled over. Epstein began to masturbate and he sexually assaulted Jane. 13. After Epstein had completed the assault, Jane was then able to get dressed, leave the room and go back down the stairs. Jane was paid $200 by Epstein. The young girl who recruited Jane was paid $100 by Epstein for bringing Jane to him. 14. As a result of this encounter with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. - 3 - EFTA00175620

. Case 9:08-j-80 -KAM Document 56 Entered I LSD Docket 02, 2009 Page 4 of 8 COUNT I Sexual Assault and Battery 15. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs I through 14 above. 16. Epstein acted with intent to cause an offensive contact with Jane Doe, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and Jane Doe was thereby put in such imminent apprehension. 17. Epstein made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Jane Doe, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril. 18. Epstein intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person of Jane Doe, with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. 19. Epstein tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Jane Doe. Epstein's acts were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. 20. Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were done willfully and maliciously. 21. As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT H Intentiimal Infliction of Emotional Distress 22. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. 23. Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless. 24. Epstein's conduct with a minor was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds - 4 - EFTA00175621

. Case 9118-6-80 .KAM Document 56 Entered LSD Docket 02/ 2009 Page 5 of 8 of decency. 25. Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, 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 Doc. 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. 2 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 I. $2422 28. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs I through 14 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- 009381AXXXMB and 2006-cf-009454AXXXMB), for conduct involving the same plan and scheme as alleged herein. 31. As to PlaintiffJane Doe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of - 5 - EFTA00175622

Case 9:08-cv-80 KAM Document 56 Entered I LSD Docket 02, 2009 Page 6 of 8 Florida Statute §796.07(2) (including subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) thereof), and other criminal offenses including violations of Florida Statutes §§798.02 and 800.04 (including subsections (5), (6) and (7) thereof). 32. Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 181= §2422. 33. As a result of Epstein's violation of 181= §2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. 34. Plaintiff hired Herman & Mermelstein, P.A., in this matter and agreed to pay them a reasonable attorneys' fee. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for all damages available under 18 ill §2255(a), including without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action on all claims so triable. Dated: February 27, 2008 Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Adam D. Horowitz Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) ssmasexabuseattomev.com 6980) MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami- 60 Tel: Fax: - 6 - EFTA00175623

Case 9:08-cV-80( •KAM Document 56 Entered LSD Docket 02/ 2009 Page 7 of 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 27, 2009,1 electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. /s/ Adam D. Horowitz - 7 - EFTA00175624

Case 9:08-cv-80' KAM Document 56 Entered q LSD Docket 02/ ?009 Page 8 of 8 SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldber cr Esq. Robert D. Critton. Esq. Is/ Adam D. Horowitz - 8 - EFTA00175625

Case 9:08-cv 119-KAM Document 69 Enter in FLSD Docket D2/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2 I JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files his Answer to the Second Amended Complaint 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 I Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 41b DCA 1983)• Malloy I 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 - "Mt 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 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — .. a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting EFTA00175626

' Case 9:08-cv 119-KAM Document 69 Enter( n FLSD Docket; 32/2009 Page 2 of 7 Jane Doe No. 2 i Epstein Page 2 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. 3. As to the allegations In paragraph 3, deny. 4. As to the allegations in paragraph 4, deny. 5. As to the allegations in paragraph 5, without knowledge and deny. 6. As to the allegations in paragraphs 6, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi I. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 41h DCA 1983); Malloy I 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 - "[i]t 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 Fla.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. 7. As to the allegations in paragraphs 7 through 14 of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Defendant exercises his Fifth Amendment Privilege against self- EFTA00175627

Case 9:08-cv 119-KAM Document 69 Enter( n FLSD Docket 02/2009 Page 3 of 7 Jane Doe No. 2 J Epstein Page 3 incrimination. See DeLisi I Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy J 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 - "[fit 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 Fla.Jur.2c1 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 15, Defendant realleges and adopts his responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth in paragraphs 1 through 6 above herein. 9. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-Incrimination to the allegations set forth In paragraphs 16 through 21 of the Second Amended Complaint See DeLisi Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy J. 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 - "[fit would be incongruous to have different standards determine the EFTA00175628

Case 9:08-cv I 19-KAM Document 69 Enters n FLSD Docket )2/2009 Page 4 of 7 Jane Doe No. 2 ' Epstein Page 4 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 Fla.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. 10. In response to the allegations of paragraph 22, Defendant realleges and adopts his responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth in paragraphs 1 through 6 above herein. 11. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 23 through 27 of the Second Amended Complaint. See DeLisi I Bankers ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy I 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 - "[i]t 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 EFTA00175629

Case 9:08-cv 119-KAM Document 69 Enten in FLSD Docket. 02/2009 Page 5 of 7 Jane Doe No. 2 I Epstein Page 5 Fla.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 28, Defendant realleges and adopts his responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth in paragraphs 1 through 6 above herein. 13. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 29 through 34 of the Second Amended Complaint. See DeLisi I. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy I. 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 - "Mt 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 Fla.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 EFTA00175630

Case 9:08-cv 119-KAM Document 69 Enten )n FLSD Docket. 02/2009 Page 6 of 7 Jane Doe No. 2 1 Epstein Page 6 application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court deny the relief sought by Plaintiff. Affirmative Defenses 1. As to all counts, Plaintiff consented to and was a willing participant in the acts alleged. 2. As to all counts alleged, Plaintiff consented to and participated in conduct similar and/or identical to the acts alleged with other persons which were the sole or contributing cause of Plaintiffs alleged damages 3. As to all counts, Defendant reasonably believed that the Plaintiff had attained the age of 18 years old at the time of the alleged acts. 4. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. WHEREFORE Defendant requests that this Court deny the rejipf sought by Plaintiff. Robert D. Cfitton, Jr. Attorney f r Defendant Epstein 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 re rg,jpentified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this y of April , 2009: EFTA00175631

.Case 9:08-cv 119-KAM Document 69 Enter( n FLSD Docket 02/2009 Page 7 of 7 Jane Doe No. 2 I. Epstein Page 7 Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 60 ax: ssm orne .com ahorowitzasexabuseattorney.com Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 o- ounse or e endant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully sub By: ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar o. 224162 rcritabcicl w.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mpikeabcIclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 000 or 1 B ach, FL 33401 Phone Fax (Co- ounse efendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00175632

. Case 9:08-cv-f.,.. 19-KAM Docun',.. 46 Enterea FLSD Docket 10k. ..2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S, EPSTEIN, MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves to dismiss and for more definite statement of Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 2's Amended Complaint. Rules 12(b)(6), and 12(e) and (f), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008). In support of his motion, Defendant states: Introduction Defendant is filing similar motions to dismiss and for more definite statement directed to the Amended Complaints filed against Defendant in this Court in JANE DOE NO. 2, JANE DOE NO. 3, JANE DOE NO. 4 and JANE DOE NO. 5. The motions are directed to the Counts for "Sexual Assault and Battery," and "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 . §2422" in each of the respective complaints. However, there are distinctions in the four motions filed based on the complaint allegations. For example, Defendant challenges the Plaintiffs' allegations as to assault in all four actions, and challenges the battery allegations in JANE DOE NOS. 2 and 3, EFTA00175633

. Case 9:08-cv-L. .19-KAM Docum. 146 Enterea FLSD Docket 10/. ,2008 Page 2 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 2 but not in JANE DOE NOS. 4 and 5. Defendant moves to dismiss the §2422 count in all four actions. Motion 1. Counts I and III of the Amended Complaint are required to be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative, Defendant seeks more definite statement of Count I and III. In Count I, the Plaintiff is required to more definitely allege what was done to her; what EPSTEIN said and did, if anything, to create fear and apprehension in Plaintiff; what was the intentional offensive or harmful contact in pleading the elements of assault and battery. In Count III, Plaintiff is required to more definitely state the underlying factual allegations to support her claim as set forth in the statute, 18 . §2422(b) and §2455. Rule 12(e). See discussion of law below herein. 3. Also, Plaintiffs reference in Count III to 28 . §2255, pertaining to habeas corpus proceedings is required to be stricken as immaterial. Rule 12(f). Plaintiff is required to more definitely state what statutory provision she is relying on. Rule 12 (e). WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Counts I and III, strike the immaterial statutory reference, and require Plaintiff to more definitely plead the underlying elements of her claims. Supporting Memorandum of Law Standard on Rule 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss As established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp.'. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), a motion to dismiss should be granted if the plaintiff does not plead EFTA00175634

Case 9:08-cv-L .19-KAM Docuri... 1c 46 Enteret, i FLSD Docket 10/, 42008 Page 3 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 3 "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id, at 1974. 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." Id, at 1965. Further, "[f]actual 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. L. DeKalb County Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153, 1156 (11th Cir.2006). Significantly, the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp.'. Twombly abrogated the often cited observation that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove not set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley I. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of claim [can] survive a motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings le[ave] open the possibility that a plaintiff might later establish some %et of [undisclosed] facts' to support recovery." Id. As explained by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp., supra at 1664-65: While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) moti to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations ibid.; Saniva . American Bd. of Psychiatry and Neurology. Inc. 40 F.3d 247, 251 .7 1994), a plaintiffs obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulpic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do, see Papasan I. AIlain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (on a motion to dismiss, courts "are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation"). Factual allegations naist be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, see 5 Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and EFTA00175635

Case 9:08-cv-i„ .19-KAM Docuri, 146 Enterer, ...i FLSD Docket 10i„,2008 Page 4 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 4 Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed.2004) (hereinafter Wright & Miller) ("[T]he pleading must contain something more ... than ... a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action"), on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz ii. Soremail. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002 ; Neitzke . Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) ( Rule 12(b)(6) does not I countenance ... dismissals b sed on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations"); Scheuer . Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a we -pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). 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. Count I — "Sexual Assault and Battery" is sublect to dismissal as Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It is well settled that this Court is to apply Florida substantive law in this action. Erie R.Co. I. Tompkins, 58 S.Ct. 817 (1938). Pursuant to Florida law, although the term "assault and battery" is most commonly referred to as if it were a legal unit, or a single concept, "assault and battery are separate and distinct legal concepts, assault being the beginning of an act which, if consummated, constitutes battery." 3A Fla.Jur.2d Assault §1. An assault and battery are intentional acts. See generally, Spivey'. Battaglia 258 So.2d 815 (Fla. 1972); and Travelers lndem. Co.'. PCR. Inc., 889 So.2d 779 (Fla. 2004). An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury to another by force, or exertion of force directed toward another under such circumstances as to create a reasonable fear of imminent peril. See Lay'. Kremer, 411 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). It must be premised upon an affirmative act - a threat to use force, or the actual EFTA00175636

Case 9:08-cv-t, ,19-MM Docum,. 46 Enteret, FLSD Docket 10k.42008 Page 5 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 5 exertion of force. See 3A Fla.Jur.2d Assault §1("The essential element of the tort of assault is the violence offered, and not actual physical contact."). Tort of "battery" consists of the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. Quilling'. Price 894 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)• Sullivan Atlantic Federal Savings & Loan 454 So.2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)("a battery consists of the intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon the person of another"). See 3A Fla.Jur.2d Assault §1. With the standard of pleading established in Twomblv, supra, in the context of the elements for assault and battery, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). As to the elements of assault, here are no factual allegations as to what was said or done to Plaintiff such that it constituted an "intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury to another by force, or exertion of force directed toward another under such circumstances as to create a reasonable fear of imminent peril." See ¶12 of Am. Comp. The same is true for the claim of battery. Plaintiff makes the general allegation that "he (Defendant) sexually assaulted Jane." The other allegations in ¶12 pertain to what Plaintiff allegedly did. Under applicable law, Plaintiff is required to give more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Twombly, supra. Plaintiff is required to allege the facts of what was done to her; what EPSTEIN said and did, if anything, to create fear and apprehension in Plaintiff; what was the intentional offensive or harmful contact? As noted in the introduction and as this Court is well aware, there is more than one action brought against this Defendant attempting to allege similar sounding claims. EFTA00175637

Case 9:08-cv-L .19-KAM Docurrk_.I 46 Enterec., _.1 FLSD Docket 10k .,2008 Page 6 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 6 With all due respect, the details as to a particular claim asserted by a particular Plaintiff are important to give this Defendant fair notice of Plaintiffs claim so he may properly respond. Accordingly, under applicable law, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for sexual assault and battery. In the alternative to dismissing Count I, Defendant requests that Plaintiff be required to give more definite statement as to what was done to her; what EPSTEIN said and did, if anything, to create fear and apprehension in Plaintiff; what was the intentional offensive or harmful contact in pleading the elements of assault and battery. Rule 12(e). Ill — "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 42422" - Is subject to dismissal as Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be grill Rule 12(b)(8). Count Ill also contains an immaterial reference to 28 . 42255, which is required to be stricken and more definitely stated. Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint attempts to assert a claim for "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 . §2422." In her prayer for relief in Count III, Plaintiff "demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for all damages available under 28 . §2255(a), ." Although the reference to "28 §2255," pertaining to habeas corpus proceedings - federal custody and remedies on motion attacking sentence, is probably a typographical error by Plaintiff, and the reference to "28" was meant to be "18," Defendant requests that Plaintiff correct this error so that Defendant may have fair notice of the claim Plaintiff is attempting to assert. Whether or not the "28" is typographical error, Defendant is still entitled to dismissal of the count. The applicable version of these statutory provisions, (pre-2006 Amendments, as the Amended Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005," ¶8), provides: EFTA00175638

Case 9:08-cv-L .19-KAM Docurri. I( 46 Enteret. FLSD Docket 10/, ,2008 Page 7 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 7 CHAPTER 117--TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND RELATED CRIMES § 2422. Coercion and enticement (a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in 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 or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (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 5 years and not more than 30 years. 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 2241II) 2242 2243 2251, 2251A, 2252 2252A, 2260 2421, 2422 or 2423 of this title and 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. Relevant to Plaintiffs complaint, 18 . 2255(a) creates a civil remedy for "a minor who is a victim of a violation of section ... 2422 ... of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation ... ." Plaintiff has failed to plead any factual allegations whatsoever pertaining to violations of 18 2422. Rather, Plaintiff has alleged conclusory allegations simply attempting to track parts of the statutory language EFTA00175639

• Case 9:08-cv-r.... .19-KAM Docurrk. 46 la .1 FLSD Docket 10i. ..2008 Page 8 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 8 in the statute without underlying factual allegations pertaining to the Plaintiff and any conduct by Defendant. See ¶29 of Am. Comp. Plaintiff's allegations, (or lack of factual allegations), are precisely what the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. prohibits — Plaintiff's complaint alleges only "labels and conclusions, and a (partial) formulaic recitation of the elements." First, the Amended Complaint fails to designate whether Plaintiff is relying on §2422(a) or §2422(b). Second, although the complaint does contain a partial tracking of the language in 18 §2422(b), it contains absolutely no factual allegations concerning the requisite "using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce" by Plaintiff to state a cause of action based on a violation of 18 2422(b). As well, there are no underlying factual allegations involving this Plaintiff as to the requisite elements that a defendant knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced any individual (Plaintiff in this case) 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 attempted to do so. See 18 2422(b); i.e. with what criminal offense could Plaintiff and Defendant have been charged. Again, a Plaintiff cannot simply track the language of a statute without some underlying factual allegations to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, Count Ill is required to be dismissed, and the reference to 28 USC 2455 be stricken. In the alternative, Plaintiff should be required to more definitely state the underlying factual allegations to support her claim as set forth in the statute, 18 §2422(b) and §2455. EFTA00175640

• Case 9:08-cv-t. .19-1<AM Docurri. .L 46 Enterec. FLSD Docket 10e, ,2008 Page 9 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 9 Conclusion As discussed above herein, under the pleading standard established in Twomblv, supra, and law concerning the elements of Count I and III, Plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs complaint lack underlying factual allegations and, thus, Plaintiff Is required to more definitely state the requisite factual allegations. Finally, Plaintiff should correct any improper statutory references. 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 6th day of October 2008: Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami FL 60 Fax: ahorowitz(ahermanlaw.com jhermanehermanlaw.com [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm B ach, FL 33401-5012 Fax: jaqescabellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Michael R. Tein, Esq. Lewis Tein, P.L. 3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 e, FL 33133 Fax: Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein teinelewistein.com EFTA00175641

Case 9:08-cv-8, I 9-KAM Docunc, . 46 Entered FLSD Docket 10/L 2008 Page 10 of 10 Case No. CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page No. 10 Respectfully subm By: ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar o. 224162 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 ISM e a ach, FL 33401 Phone Fax (Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00175642

Case 9:08-co A 19-KAM Docu. .:nt 43 Enters. FLSD Docket ({, _3/2008 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA Jane Doe No. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. / ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint (DE 13) and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (DE 40). As Plaintiff's Complaint has been replaced by an Amended Complaint, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (I) Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint (DE 13) is DENIED as moot. (2) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (DE 40) is DENIED as moot. This denial is without prejudice to Defendant reasserting the grounds asserted in the motion if he deems it appropriate as to the Amended Complaint. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 23n° day of September, 2008. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge copies to: All counsel of record EFTA00175643

Case 9:08-cv-L. . 19-KAM Docurk.. It 42 Entered FLSD Docket 09L...2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 2 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey Epstein, as follows: Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Jane Doe No. 2 is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 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 . §I 332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; and (ii) is between citizens of different states. 6. This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 §1391(a) as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. Factual xlletzatioas EFTA00175644

Case 9:08-cv-8, 19-KAM Docurrit,..t 42 Entered i FLSD Docket 09i4-#2008 Page 2 of 8 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52 years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to billionaires. Ile is himself a man of tremendous wealth, powcr and influence. Ile maintains his principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. Thomas and Palm Reach, FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach. 8. Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls. I ie engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave them money. In or about 2004-2005, Jane Doc, then approximately 16 years old, fell into Epstein's trap and became one of his victims. 9. Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. Thomas. 10. Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. (Upon information and belief, the young girl who brought Jane Doe to Epstein was herself a minor victim of Epstein, and will therefore not be named in this Complaint). Under Epstein's plan, underage girls were recruited ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation in his Palm Reach mansion. The recruiter would be contacted when Epstein was planning to be at his Palm Beach residence or soon after he had arrived there. Epstein or someone on his behalf would direct the recruiter to bring one or more underage girls to the residence. The recruiter, upon information and belief, generally sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from western Palm Beach County who would be enticed by the money being offered - 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. - 2 - EFTA00175645

Case 9.08-cv-Ik. I 9-KAM Docunrit..., 42 Entered i FLSD Docket 09/L2008 Page 3 of 8 11. Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Upon arrival at Epstein's mansion, the underage victim would be introduced tc Epstein's assistant, who gathered the girl's personal information, including her name and telephone number. Ms. 1 . 1 would then bring the girl up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. There were photographs of nude women lining the stairway hall and in the bedroom. The girl would then find herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing only a towel. He would then remove his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl to remove her clothes. Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including 12. Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, Jane Doe was recruited to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. Jane was brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach. Once at the mansion, Jane was introduced to , who led her up the flight of stairs to the room with the massage table. In this room, Epstein told Jane to take off her clothes and give him a massage. Jane kept her panties and bra on and complied with Epstein's instructions. Epstein wore only a towel around his waste. After a short period of time, Epstein removed the towel and rolled over Epstein began to masturbate and he sexually assaulted Jane. 13. After Epstein had completed the assault, Jane was then able to get dressed, leave the room and go back down the stairs. Jane was paid $200 by Epstein. The young girl who recruited Jane was paid $100 by Epstein for bringing Jane to him. 14. As a result of this encounter with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame, humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries. COUNT I Sexual Assault and Battery 15. PlaintiffJane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. 16. Epstein acted with intent to cause an offensive contact with Jane Doe, or an imminent - 3 - EFTA00175646

Case 9:08-cv-EL. . I 9-KAM Documtt....i 42 Entered u FLSD Docket 09/L2008 Page 4 of 8 apprehension of such a contact, and Jane Doe was thereby put in such imminent apprehension. 17. Epstein made an intentional, unlawful offer of offensive sexual contact toward Jane Doe, creating a reasonable fear of imminent peril. 18. Epstein intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact on the person of Jane Doc, with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. 19. Epstein tortiously committed a sexual assault and battery on Jane Doc. Epstein's acts were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful. 20. Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were done willfully and maliciously. 21. As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doc No. 4 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT II Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 22. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and rea lieges paragraphs 1 through 14 above. 23. Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless. 24. Epstein's conduct with a minor was extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds of decency. 25. Epstein committed willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, 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 - 4 - EFTA00175647

. • Case 9:08-cv-i). .19-KAM DocunLI 42 Enteree FLSD Docket 09 ,2008 Page 5 of 8 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. 2 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 42422 28. Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs I through 14 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. Epstein's acts and conduct are in violation of 18 . §2422. 31. As a result of Epstein's violation of 18 §2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. 32. Plaintiff hired Herman & Mermelstein, P.A., in this matter and agreed to pay them a reasonable attorneys' fee. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for all damages available under 28 §2255(a), including without limitation, actual and compensatory damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action on all claims so triable. - 5 - EFTA00175648

Case 9:08-cv-8, 9-KAM Documi..... 42 Entered . FLSD Docket 2008 Page 6 of 8 Dated: September 22, 2008 Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Jeffrey M. Herman Jeffre M. Berman FL Bar No. 521647) Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) 11ERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: Fax: - 6 - EFTA00175649

Case 9:08-cv-L .19-KAM Docuri. 142 Enterer .1 FLSD Docket 09,.. i2008 Page 7 of 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 22, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/E.CF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. /s/ Jeffrey M. Herman - 7 - EFTA00175650

Case 9:08-cy-b. . I 9-KAM Docunrit....i 42 Entered FLSD Docket 09/.-,2008 Page 8 of 8 SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Cioldbcr er Esq. Michael R. Tein Esq. Robert D. Critton Michael Es E . /s/ Jeffrey M. Herman - 8 - EFTA00175651

Case 9:08-1. )119-KAM Docur.....it 41 Enters_ on FLSD Docket 09,_2/2008 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 2, ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), by and through her undersigned counsel, files this Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and states as follows: 1. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein is alleged to have sexually abused Jane Doe when she was a minor. The Complaint is in two Counts: Count I is labeled "Sexual Assault", and alleges an intentional tort based on the actions of Jeffrey Epstein; Count II alleges the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the same factual allegations. Defendant Epstein has moved to dismiss only Count I of the Complaint, contending that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. Simultaneously herewith, Plaintiff intends to file an Amended Complaint which substantially revises Count I and moots the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.' 2. In any event, the Complaint sufficiently alleged a claim for sexual assault and battery. I mended Complaint also adds as Count III a federal claim against Defendant Epstein under 18 §§2422 and 2255. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), a party may amend the pleading once as a matter of course before being served with a "responsive pleading". Defendant has not to date filed a "responsive pleading" in this case within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a). It is established in the courts of the Eleventh Circuit that a motion to dismiss is not a "responsive pleading" and does not affect a plaintiff's right to amend the pleading once as a matter of course. Williams'. Board of Regents, 477 F.3d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 2007). HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A. - 1 - EFTA00175652

Case 9:08-cv ,119-KAM Doom 41 Entere. Jr' FLSD Docket 0(o. .z/2008 Page 2 of 4 The gravamen of the claims in Count I is set forth in paragraph 16 of the Complaint: "Epstein tortiously assaulted Jane Doe sexually. Epstein's acts were intentional, unlawful, offensive and harmful." 3. Count I does not purport to be brought under the criminal statutes.2 Whether a Complaint states a claim for relief is not based on labels or conclusions; rather it is determined by the factual allegations, which "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Com. 1 Twombley, 127 5. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Here, the factual allegations establish an intentional tort claim for sexual assault and battery.3 See Paul I Holbrook, 696 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ("[a] battery consists of the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent"); Scelta I Delicatessen Support Services. Inc., 57 F.Supp. 2d 1327, 1358-59 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (allegation that defendant attempted to put his hands down plaintiff's dress, and that there was an actual and intentional touching, sufficient to state a claim for battery); Hogan I Tavzel, 660 So.2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (tortfeasor may be liable for battery for infecting another with a sexually transmitted disease); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts Assault, § 21 (1965) (stating that an assault occurs when a person "acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and the other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension"). 2Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes is mentioned in the Complaint (118) because conduct against a person in violation of the criminal laws of the State generally give rise to a civil claim for intentional tort. Count I does not purport to bring a separate civil claim for violation of a strictly criminal statute. Assault and battery are fjosely related common law intentional torts that are commonly alleged together. See Herzfeld I. Herzfeld 781 So.2d 1070 (Fla.2001) (noting that plaintgf alleged intentional tort of "assault and battery" based on allegations of sexual abuse). Sullivan I Atlantic Federal Savings & Loan 454 So.2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (holding that a cause of action for assault and battery cannot be based entirely on an omission). HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN. P. A. -2- EFTA00175653

Case 9:08+. ,119-KAM Docui....it 41 Enterer. FLSD Docket 06. .z12008 Page 3 of 4 4. Epstein's conduct as alleged in this case of masterbating during the massage, directing the Plaintiff to remove her clothes, and touching the Plaintiff, constitutes the intentional tort of assault and battery. Accordingly, even if the Complaint had not been amended, it sufficiently alleges facts establishing an assault and battery. Based on the foregoing, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is moot, and, in any event, not well founded, and therefore should be denied. Dated: September 22, 2008. Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Jeffrey M. Herman Jeffre M. Herman FL Bar No. 521647) Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A. Attorneys for Plainafty Jane Doe 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami. Florida 33160 Tel: Fax: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 22, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day to all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN. P. A. /s/ Jeffrey M. Herman - 3 - EFTA00175654

Case 9:08-cv ,119-KAM Docur,. .it 41 Enters in FLSD Docket OS. _/2008 Page 4 of 4 SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Michael R. Tein, Esq. Robert D. Critton, Es . Michael Pike, Es . /s/ Jeffrey M. Herman HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN. P. A. - 4 - EFTA00175655

Case 9:08-cv-L .19-KAM Docun. .c 40 Enteret. -n FLSD Docket 09,.. ,12008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7.1(A) of the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida, moves to dismiss Count I of plaintiffs complaint,' and states as follows: ' The time to answer the remaining allegations 2f the complaint is tolled pending the Court's ruling on the present motion. See Beaulieu Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of W. Fla., No. 3:07cv30/RWEMT, 2007 WL 2020161, * 2 (N.D. Fla. July 9, 2007) (holding that defendant's partial motion to dismiss "automatically exteills its time to answer . . . until after the court has ruled on [its] motion to dismiss"); Finnegan I Univ. of Rochester Med. Ctr., 180 F.R.D. 247, 249 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) (concluding "that the filing of a motion that only addresses part of a complaint suspends the time to reipond to the entire complaint, not just to the claims that are the subject of the motion"); Schwartz Berry College, Inc., No. Civ.A. 4:96CV338-HLM, 1997 WL 579166, *1 (ND. Oa. July 3, 1997) (noting that there is significant case law to support the position that "when a defendant files a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, addressing only some of the claims contained in the plaintiff's complaint, the defendant is not required to file an answer until the court rules on the motion to dismiss"). EFTA00175656

Case 9 08-cv-t, ,19-KAM Docurn,..i 40 Enterei. FLSD Docket 09k, ./2008 Page 2 of 8 CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRAJJOHNSON ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT This action arises out of the alleged assault of the plaintiff. According to the allegations in her complaint, the plaintiff went to Mr. Epstein's house to give him "a massage for monetary compensation" (Compl. ¶ 12), where Mr. Epstein allegedly assaulted her "in violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes." (Compl. ¶ 18). The plaintiff tries to assert a claim for sexual assault (Compl. ¶¶ 15-19.) This theory of liability, however, cannot be supported by the allegations in the complaint. In fact, even if everything in the complaint were true, recovery against Jeffrey Epstein, for Count I, under any formulation, is impossible under Florida law. Accordingly, this count must be dismissed. ARGUMENT A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(6)(6) should be granted when a court cannot identify "each of the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Snow'. DirectTV, Inc., 450 F.3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Roe'. Aware Woman Ctr. For Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 684 (11th Cir. 2001)). Moreover, a court should dismiss a complaint "when, on the basis of a dispositive issue of law, no construction of the factual allegations will support a cause of action." Marshall County Bd. of Educ. Marshal County Gas Dist, 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 1993). "[TI survive a 2 EFTA00175657

Case 9:08-cv-b,. . 19-KAM Docurrk..., 40 Entereo FLSD Docket 09/L .,2008 Page 3 of 8 CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must do more than merely state legal conclusions; they are required to allege some specific factual bases for those conclusions . . . ." Grist, No. 06-14617, 2007 WL 1156938, *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 19, 2007). As such, "conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal." Snow, 450 F.3d at 1320. 1. Count I Fails to State a Cause of Action For Assault Recognized by Florida Law. The plaintiff attempts to plead a cause of action against Mr. Epstein for "sexual assault" based on a "violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes"2 for the "lewd and lascivious acts committed by Epstein upon Jane Doe." (Compl. 18.) Plaintiff cannot assert a cause of action for "violation of Chapter 800, Florida Statutes" because there is no private right of action under that Chapter. See generally Am. Home Assurance Co... Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005) (observing that "not every statutory violation carries a civil remedy" (citing Villazonl. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003)). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. 1. Ferre, 636 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (King, (holding that violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to a civil cause of action for damages). 2 Chapter 800, Florida Statutes, is entitled, "Lewdness; Indecent Exposure." 3 EFTA00175658

Case 9:08-cv-b,.. .19-KAM Documt....140 Entereo FLSD Docket 091u ..2008 Page 4 of 8 CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRAJJOI-INSON Where a plaintiff brings a civil action pursuant to a criminal statute that provides no civil remedy, her complaint is properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. See Mantoothl. Richards, 557 So. 2d 646, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's claim for parental kidnapping where "the mentioned statutes concern only criminal violations and do not afford a civil remedy") (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Even if Chapter 800 provided a civil remedy (which it does not) the statute does not apply to the plaintiff. The statute prohibits sexual activity with or lewd or lascivious offenses against "a person . less than 16 years of age." § 800.04, Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added). By her own admission, the plaintiff was "approximately 16 years old." (Compl. ¶ 8.) (emphasis added). Plainly, the plaintiff falls outside of the scope of the statute's protection. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for sexual assault against Mr. Epstein, pursuant to a violation of Chapter 800, Florida Statutes, must be dismissed. Should the Court look beyond the plain language of the plaintiff's complaint and construe Count I as a claim for common-law assault, that claim would also fail. As the court explained in Lay' Kremer, 411 So. 2d 1347, 1349 (Ha. 1st DCA 1982), an assault is "an intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury to another by force, or force unlawfully directed toward another under such circumstances as to create a fear of imminent peril, coupled with the apparent 4 EFTA00175659

Case 9:08-cv-t, .19-KAM Docum. .40 Enterec. FLSD Docket 09k .,2008 Page 5 of 8 CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON present ability to effectuate the attempt." An assault thus requires "an affirmative act—a threat to use force, or the actual exertion of force." Sullivan'. All. Fed. Say. & Loan Assoc., 454 So. 2d 52, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (affirming dismissal of assault claim where there was no affirmative act). In this case, there is no such affirmative act. The only thing that Mr. Epstein is alleged to have said to the plaintiff is "to take off her clothes" and "to give him a massage." (Compl. ¶ 12.) These allegations fall far short of an "offer of corporal injury by force." There are no allegations that Jane Doe was placed in any fear of imminent peril. See Gatto'. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (holding that where there was no evidence to show that Gatto was placed in fear of imminent peril, there was no assault). In fact, the plaintiff does not even allege that Mr. Epstein touched her. Thus, there was no assault. Accordingly, because the plaintiff has failed to plead a cause of action for assault recognized in Florida, Count I against Mr. Epstein must be dismissed. Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests that Count I of the plaintiff's complaint be dismissed. 5 EFTA00175660

Case 9:08-cv-b. 19-KAM Documt. . 40 Entered FLSD Docket o911..2008 Page 6 of 8 CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Respectfully submitted, LEWIS TE1N, P.L. 3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 Coconut Grove. Florida 33133 Tel: Fax: By: /s/ Michael R. Tein GUY A. LEWIS Fla. Bar No. 623740 [email protected] MICHAEL R. TEN Fla. Bar No. 993522 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 Tel. Fax. By: Jack A. Goldberger Fla. Bar No. 262013 BURMA/4, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 Tel. Fax. 6 EFTA00175661

Case 9:08-cv-8u . '9-KAM Docume. . 40 Entered. . FLSD Docket 09/C _008 Page 7 of 8 CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON By: Robert D. Critton, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 224162 Michael J. Pike, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 617296 Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1 Undersigned counsel has conferred in good faith with counsel for the plaintiff, who opposes the relief requested in this motion. /s/ Michael R. Tein Michael R. Tein CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 4, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all individuals on the following service list via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. /s/ Michael It Tein Michael IL Tein 7 EFTA00175662

Case 9:08-cv-8U i9-KAM Docume... 40 Entered FLSD Docket 09/0•.._008 Page 8 of 8 CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Service List Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Fax: 8 EFTA00175663

Case 9:081, J119-KAM Docum.. .. 34 Enter.. Jr) F LSD Docket 08i. .2008 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File Under Seal, filed July 28, 2008. Defendant seeks to file his reply to his Motion to Stay under seal.' The Court has carefully considered the motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. As the Court has previously explained to the parties, the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida state that "proceedings in the United States District Court are public and Court filings arc matters of public record." S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon I. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). "The right to inspect and copy records is not absolute, however. As with other forms of access, it may interfere with the administration of justice and hence may have to be curtailed."Mil I. Graddick, 696 F.2d 'The parties are reminded that all documents filed conventionally (including those filed under seal) must be filed with the Clerk's Office in West Palm Beach, Florida. EFTA00175664

Case 9:08-D, J119-KAM Docurn. a 34 Entert.... on FLSD Docket 08r,,.,i2008 Page 2 of 2 796, 803 (11th Cir.1983). This right of access creates a presumption in favor of openness of court records, which "must be balanced against any competing interest advanced." United States Noriega, 752 F. Supp. 1037, 1040 (S.D. Fla.1990). For example, courts may look to see whether the records sought are for illegitimate purposes. Ma 696 F.2d at 803. Likewise, the Court may consider whether "the press has already been permitted substantial access to the contents of the records." Id. In his motion to seal, Defendant states that he seeks to file this document under seal "to comply with the confidentiality clause" in the agreement between Defendant and the U.S. Attorney cited in his brief. (Def. Mot. 2.) The Court is familiar with the U.S. Attorney's objections to unsealing any part of the agreement, see In re: Jane Doe, No. 08-80736-CIV (S.D. Fla. July 11, 2008). However, as the Court has previously held, the U.S. Attorney's objections do not outweigh the public interest in having access to court records. Further, the details of the agreement contained in Defendant's Reply brief have, in large part, already been unsealed and released to the public. The Court finds no justification to keep these documents under seal. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to File Under Seal is DENIED. The Clerk shall UNSEAL docket entries 29 and 30 and make them available for public inspection through CM/ECF at the earliest possible time. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 4th day of August, 2008. KENNET!! A. MARRA United States District Judge Copies furnished to: all counsel of record 2 EFTA00175665

Case 9:08-cv-8u I19-KAM Document 38 Enterea on FLSD Docket 08i It/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. / JANE DOE NO. 3, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 4, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 5, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-KAM-L JUL 2 8 2008 - 0 C. t_ STEVEN M. RI CLERKoFF a us. eA" CTE AMJ CASE NO.: 08-80232-CIV-K "------- CASE NO.: 08-80380-CIV-KAM-LRJ CASE NO.: 08-80381-CIV-KAM-LRJ FILED UNDER SEAL. EPSTEIN'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY This motion is filed under seal because the deferred-prosecution agreement between the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein. discussed herein, contains a confidentiality clause. A motion to seal has been filed contemporaneously. so/5 EFTA00175666

Case 9:08-cv-8u'19-KAM Documw it 38 Enterea vtl FLSD Docket 08/ I e./2008 Page 2 of 13 The Pending Federal Criminal Action In 2006, a Florida state grand jury indicted Jeffrey Epstein on allegations similar to those in the instant actions (State of Florida I Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF 09454, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County) (the "Florida Criminal Actiont Shortly thereafter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "USAO") began a federal grand-jury investigation into allegations arising out of the same incidents alleged in the instant actions (Grand Jury No. 07-103 (WPB)2 United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida) (the "Federal Criminal Action"). In September 2007, the USAO and Mr. Epstein entered into a highly unusual and unprecedented deferred-prosecution agreement (the "Agreement"), in which the USAO agreed to defer (not dismiss or close) the Federal Criminal Action on the condition that Mr. Epstein continue to comply with numerous obligations, the first of which was pleading guilty to certain state charges in the Florida Criminal Action. The Agreement itself uses the term "deferred" (rather than "dismissed" or "closed") to describe the status of the Federal Criminal Action: THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement . .. . Agreement, at 2. By no stretch did the USAO finalize, close, complete, dismiss or abandon the Federal Criminal Action. Indeed, as the lead federal prosecutor recently explained, the USAO merely I Since the filing of the motion to stay, Mr. Epstein has pled guilty and been sentenced in the Florida Criminal Action. See Notice Concerning Motion to Stay (7/1/08). Accordingly, the Florida Criminal Action is no longer a basis for this stay. Epstein relies exclusively on the pending Federal Criminal Action for this motion and therefore here provides additional background information relating to that action. 2 At the USAO's request, we wish to clarify a minor issue regarding the form of' a citation in Epstein's initial memorandum supporting his motion to stay. That memorandum cites to the Federal Criminal Action as "hvi Grand Jury No. 07.103 (WPB)," rather than citing it simply as "Grand Jury No. 107.103 (WPB)." See Motion to Stay, at 2 (6/20/08). Technically, a citation to "In re Grand Jury No. 07-103 (WPB)" could be interpreted as referring to litigation arising from Epstein's motion to quash a subpoena previously issued by "Grand Jury No. 07-103 (WPB)," which subpoena, according to the terms of the deferred-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the USA() described Infra at 1.3, the USAO is presently holding in abeyance. Accordingly, we hereby clarify that our citation on Page 2 of our motion to stay denoted the grand-jury investigation itself, not litigation arising from that grand jury investigation. EFTA00175667

• Case 9:08-cv-bvi19-KAM Docurntot 38 Enterea un FLSD Docket 08/ .42008 Page 3 of 13 "agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida . . . ." See In re. Jane Doe, Case No. 08-80736-C1V-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.) (DE 14), Decl. of AUSA , 07/09/08,1 5, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (emphasis added). Under the Agreement, the USAO presently retains the continuing right to indict Mr. Epstein - - or to unseal "any" already-existing federal "charges" that may already have been handed up by the federal grand jury and sealed - - should he breach any of its provisions. Agreement, at 2. The period of the deferral continues until three months after Mr. Epstein completes service of his sentence in the Florida Criminal Action. Id. Indeed, the final three months of the Agreement's term constitute an extended period during which the USAO expressly retains the ability to evaluate whether Epstein committed any breaches of his numerous obligations under the Agreement while he was serving his state sentence, and, if it so determines, reserves the right to indict (or unseal an existing indictment against) Mr. Epstein - - even after he has completed serving his entire state sentence. The Agreement further provides that upon Epstein's execution of a plea agreement in the State Criminal Case, the Federal Criminal Action "will be suspended" and all pending grand-jury subpoenas "will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement." Agreement, at 5 (emphasis added). The Agreement directs the USAO and Epstein to -maintain their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued," and to maintain such evidence "inviolate." Id. (emphasis added). It also expressly provides that the grand-jury subpoenas continue to remain "outstanding" until "the successful completion of the terms of this agreement." Id. (emphasis added). Finally, the Agreement provides that the USAO's declination of prosecution for certain enumerated offenses and dismissal of any existing (sealed) charges will not occur until 90 days following the completion of his state sentence: If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has 2 EFTA00175668

Case 9:08-cv-bvi 19-KAM Docurn.nit 38 Enterea -.1 FLSD Docket 08/ ,,./2008 Page 4 of 13 violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of (sic] giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages I and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein, if any, will be dismissed. Agreement, at 2. Consistent with the Agreement and its position that the Federal Criminal Action continues to remain pending, the USAO recently sent letters to attorneys for people that the USAO has designated as "victims." In those letters, the USAO asked, "iljf you do file a claim under 18 . § 2255 and Mr. Epstein denies that your client is a victim of an enumerated offense, please provide notice of that denial to the undersigned (AUSA]." See Decl. of Exhs. 6 & 7, at 2 (July 9, 2008). The clear implication of the USAO's request (by which the USAO appears to involve itself in the instant litigation, despite advising the recipients that it cannot "take part in or otherwise assist in civil litigation," Id.), is that the USAO believes that such denial might breach the Agreement. Accordingly, the Federal Criminal Action remains "pending." Discussion I. Section 3509(k) Applies to Investigations, Not Just Indictments. While there is no unsealed indicted criminal case against Mr. Epstein, the government's criminal investigation against him remains open. Section 3509(k) clearly applies to stay civil cases during the pendency, not only of indicted criminal cases, but also of yet-to-be-closed investigations. The term "criminal action" is not expressly defined in § 3509(k). It is defined, however, by a closely related statute. Title 18, § 1595 provides a civil remedy for "forced labor" and "sex trafficking" violations, but stays such actions "during the pendency of any criminal action arising out of the same occurrence in which the claimant is the victim." (A copy of § 1595 is 3 EFTA00175669

Case 9:08-Gv-,...)119-KAM Dom...Jilt 38 Entereu on FLSD Docket 0L ,2/2008 Page 5 of 13 attached hereto as Exhibit "B"). In enacting § 1595, Congress specifically intended that the term "criminal action" would be applied extremely broadly. Accordingly, Congress took pains to ensure that courts would give it the broadest possible construction and, for that reason, specified in the definition provision that "criminal action" also "includes investigation." 18 1595(bX2). The only reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Aral. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456, *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the government's criminal investigation of the defendants and of any resulting criminal prosecution") (emphasis added). Given that the USAO's Agreement with Epstein indicates that: • the grand jury's subpoenas remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.); • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (id); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.) (which would be entirely unnecessary if the investigation against Epstein were closed); • "any" existing "charges" will not "be dismissed" until after Epstein has "timely fulfill[ed] all the terms and conditions of the Algreement" (id. at 2); and • "prosecution in this District . . . shall be deferred" (id.) (but not closed or dismissed). - - then, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Federal Criminal Action remains "pending." 3 The plaintiffs argue that a § 3509(k) stay would be "inconsistent with Mr. Epstein's Agreement with the U.S. Attorney" which the plaintiffs claim is reproduced in the lead 3 The ordinary meaning or the adjective "pending" is "Nemaining undecided; awaiting decision ...." Black's Law Dictionary 1154 (8th ed. 2004). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit routinely relies on Black's Law Dictionary for the definition of statutory terms, including in criminal cases. See e.g., United States'. Young. 528 F.3d 1294, 1297 n.3 (11th Cir. 2008) (definitions of criminal "complaint" and "indictment"); United States'. Brown. 526 F.3d 691, 705 (11th Cir. 2008) (definition of "knowingly" in criminal statute). A Westlaw search revealed that in 2008 alone, the Ekvtnth Circuit has already published eight opinions relying on Black's Law Dictionary for definitions. See also, White'. Klitskie, 281 F.3d 920, ns (9th Cir. 2002) (relying on Black's Law Dictionary, in the context of a criminal case, for the definition of "pending" as "awaiting decision"); Swartz I. Meyers, 204 F.3d 417, 421 (3d Cir. 2000) (relying on Black's Law Dictionary for the definition of "pending," expressly because "'pending' is not defined in the statute"). Any common-sense reading of the Agreement and the USAO's recent sworn construction of it, is consonant with the Federal Criminal Action's "remaining undecided" and "awaiting decision." See Unified Gov't of Athens-Clarke County'. Athens Newspapers. LLC, No. S0761133, _S.E.2d 2008 WL 2579238, *3 (Ga. lune 30, 2008) (reviewing a public-records request against Georgia's "pending investigation" exception to its open-records law, and holding that "a seemingly inactive investigation which has not yet resulted in a prosecution logically "remains undecided," and is therefore -pending," until it "is concluded and the file closed") (emphasis added). 4 EFTA00175670

Case 9:08-cv-8t, 119-KAM Documt...L 38 Entered FLSD Docket 08/,_,2008 Page 6 of 13 prosecutor's July 10 letter to their counsel (attached to Plaintiffs' responses as Exhibit A). Apparently, on July 10, the lead prosecutor sent a letter to the plaintiffs' lawyer stating that "lolne . . condition to which Epstein has agreed" is that each plaintiff "will have .the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense." See Response Memo, at 5 & Ex. A, at 1-2 (emphasis added). This argument warrants absolutely no consideration, however, since the plaintiffs have not pled any claims under 18 . § 2255. 11. Section 3509(k) Applies Even After a Plaintiff Turns 18. Without citing to a single case, the plaintiffs argue that § 3509(k) does not apply to plaintiffs over the age of 18. An examination of the legislative history and related statutes shows that this unsupported argument must be rejected. The parallel stay provision in § 1595, discussed supra at 3-4, mandates, without exception, that any civil action brought under that section for violations of § 1591 (prohibiting transportation of minors for prostitution) "shall be stayed during the pendency of any criminal action arising out of the same occurrence in which the claimant is the victim." 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1). Whether the § 1595 plaintiff has turned 18 does not vitiate the efficacy of this mandatory stay. An example illustrates why the stay provided in § 3509(k) has the same broad scope as the stay provided in § 1591(b)(1). As discussed above, § 3509(k) stays any civil suit for injury to a minor, arising out of the same occurrence as a pending criminal action. One type of civil suit falling within § 3509(k)'s ambit is a suit seeking redress for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Section 2423(a) - - just like § 1591 - - prohibits transportation of minors for prostitution. The elements of both statutes arc identical. There would simply be no legitimate basis for Congress to differentiate between the consequences attached to violating these two sections. Thus, just as Congress mandated under § 1595(b)(1) that civil discovery shall be stayed when there is an ongoing federal investigation under § 1591 (even after the victim turns 18), the identical treatment should apply under § 3509(k) to civil actions brought for the identical violation of § 2423(a). 5 EFTA00175671

Case 9:08-cv-_ A 19-KAM Docui ....sit 38 Entere, sin FLSD Docket th:), .2/2008 Page 7 of 13 Logic compels a rule requiring continued application of the § 3509(k) stay to a putative victim who has since turned 18. Consider again the example of § 2243(a). Assume that the USAO is investigating a § 2243(a) violator with two alleged victims; one who is now 17, and one who has turned 19. Assume further that both decide to sue the alleged offender while the USAO is still in the process of conducting its criminal investigation. Why would Congress prohibit the defendant from conducting civil discovery in the 17-year-old's lawsuit, but permit him to conduct full discovery in the 19-year-old's lawsuit, including taking the depositions of both the 19- and the 17-year-old, the federal investigating agents and all the grand-jury witnesses? This could not have been Congress' intent. The legislative history to a statute resembling § 1595 is also instructive. When Congress enacted 181.1. § 2255, it provided a civil remedy to any "minor . . . victim" of enumerated federal sex offenses. See Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-500, 100 Stat. 1783. § 703 (1986). In 2006, Congress amended the statute to clarify that the civil cause of action was available not just while the victim was a minor, but even after she or he turned 18. See Pub. L. 109-248, 120 Stat. 650, § 707 (bXIXA) (amending § 2255 to permit suit by adults who were victims of enumerated federal offenses when they were minors, by deleting "Any minor who is la victim]" and adding "Any person, who, while a minor, was [a victim]"). Meanwhile, the stay provisions of § 3509(k) remained unchanged. There is no reason to think that Congress would afford prosecutors protection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe I. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WL 950623, at *2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the minor Plaintiffs have now reached the age of majority during the pendency of the state criminal case." Id. The court found this argument "unavailing . . . given the victims' minor status at the time of the events giving rise to the underlying claims." Id. (Interestingly, the arguments made by Jane Doe Nos. 2-5 in their oppositions to Epstein's motion to stay presently 6 EFTA00175672

Case 9:08-ov-L119-KAM Docurrit..fc 38 Entered FLSD Docket 08/ ....,2008 Page 8 of 13 pending before this Court, are literally lifted' from the plaintiffs' brief submitted to, and rejected by, the Northern District of New York in Francis.) The court specifically held that "because the victims were minors at the time of the Defendants' actions alleged in both [the civil and criminal] cases, § 3509(k) applies." Id. (emphasis added). The United States Department of Justice has itself emphatically embraced the interpretation of § 3509(k) as applying to stay all civil actions relating to sex offenses against minors, pending the completion of a parallel criminal action, without regard to whether the plaintiff has turned 18 during her civil lawsuit: The subsection should stay all pending civil actions in the wake of a criminal prosecution. Notably, in the context of 18 USC § 2255 ("civil remedy for personal injuries"), all civil actions are stayed pending the completion of a criminal action. See also 18 1:SC § 3509(k). H.R. Rep. 108-264(11), 108th Cong., 1st Sess. (2003), reprinted at 2003 WL 22272907, at *16-17 ("agency view" by the Department of Justice on bill later codified at 18 . § 1595). The Department specifically argued to Congress in the clearest terms: "We believe that prosecutions should take priority over civil redress and that prosecutions should be complete prior to going forward with civil suits." 14. at 17 (emphasis added). Nowhere did the Department remotely suggest - - as the plaintiffs have implied - - that pending prosecutions warrant less protection (Le., should be "hinder[ed1") simply because a particular civil plaintiff happens to reach his or her 18th birthday. III. A Stay is Mandatory Despite Resulting "Delay" to Civil Lawsuits. Inherent in any § 3509(k) stay is delay to the progress (discovery, trial, appeal) of all related civil lawsuits. Congress recognized this in enacting the stay provision, which necessarily prioritized the interests of completing a criminal investigation and prosecution over the interests of a particular plaintiff in seeking personal pecuniary damages. Based on this reasoning, the Francis Compare Doe I. Francis, Case No. 5:03cv260-MCR-WCS (N.D. Fla.), Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motinn to Reconsider Plaintiffs Motion to Lift Stay and for Status Conference (DE 92. available on PACER), with Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendant's Motion to Stay, filed in Case Nos. 08-cv-80119-KAM Woe No. 2, DE 25), 08-cv-80232•KAM (Doe No. 3, DE 20), 08-cv-80380-KAM (Doe No. 4, DE 31), and 08-cv- 80381-KAM (Doe No. S. DE 29). 7 EFTA00175673

Case 9:08-c&J119-KAM Docuc.,,int 38 Entereu on FLSD Docket Ob, I 2/2008 Page 9 of 13 court specifically refused to provide any relief to plaintiffs "simply because the state [criminal] matter is not progressing as fast as they would hope." 2005 WL 950623, at *2. The court made this determination despite the plaintiffs' complaints about the "frustrating delay" and that "the state criminal case 'has languished for almost two years with no end in sight," finding that this "is a. matter to be addressed in state [criminal] court." Id. Accordingly, the anticipated delay in this case, attendant to the term of the deferred-prosecution agreement, does not change the clear command of § 3509(k). According to their own pleadings, the plaintiffs waited between three and six years before filing these lawsuits,5 and so cannot rightfully claim prejudice from additional temporary delay. IV. Section 3509 Aside, a Discretionary Stay is Warranted. Even, arguendo, were this Court not to apply the mandate of § 3509, a discretionary stay should still be entered during the pendency of the Federal Criminal Action. SEC'. Healihsouih Corp.. 261 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1326 (N.D. Ala. 2003) ("No question exists that this court has the power to stay a civil proceeding due to an active, parallel criminal investigation."). Other federal statutes support such a stay -- particularly when the criminal action may be adversely affected by the civil litigation. For example, under 18 § 2712(eX1), "the court shall stay any action commenced [against the United States] if the court determines that civil discovery will adversely affect the ability of the Government to conduct a related investigation or prosecution of a related criminal case." Allowing these lawsuits to progress while Epstein remains subject to the Federal Criminal Action will prejudice him irrevocably and irreparably. As provided below, there are several adverse effects to allowing the civil litigation to proceed while the Federal Criminal Action remains pending. In these lawsuits, Epstein has a right to defend himself. In the Federal Criminal Action, Epstein has a right against self-incrimination.6 Without a stay, Epstein will be immediately forced to abandon one of these rights. Jane Does No. 2 and No. 3 allege that their claims arose "Mit or about 2004-2005r Jane Does No. 4 and No. S allege that their claims arose "Mn or about 2002-2003." Complaints, 18. 8 EFTA00175674

6se 9:08-cv-8u 19-KAM Documei., 38 Entered FLSD Docket 08/1-2008 Page 10 of 13 Should he choose his Fifth Amendment rights, he will expose himself to an adverse inference at the summary-judgment stage and at trial. See generally. Wehlingl. Columbia Broad. Sys., 611 F.2d 1026, 1027 (5th Cir. 1980) (observing that "invocation of the privilege would be subject to the drawing of an adverse inference by the trier of fact"). On the other hand, should Epstein choose his right to defend himself in these lawsuits, the USAO will be able to use his responses at every stage of the discovery and trial process (e.g., his Answer, responses to document requests, responses to requests for admissions, sworn answers to interrogatories, answers to deposition questions, and trial testimony) to his detriment in the Federal Criminal Action.' In these lawsuits, even before civil discovery begins, under the Initial Disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and S.D. Ma. Local Rule 26.1, Epstein "must" disclose the identities of all the witnesses he would call in his defense to the Federal Criminal Action (Rule 26(aXIXAX0), copies of "all documents" he "may use to support this] defenses" (Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii)), as well as the identity of "any" expert witness he "may use at trial," along with mandatory disclosure of "a written report" containing "a complete statement of all opinions the [expert] will express and the basis and reasons for them" (Rule 26(a)(2XA) and (B)(i)). In contrast, in the pending Federal Criminal Action, which is governed exclusively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USA° would not be entitled to compel pm-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(bX1XA), J), and 16(bX2); United Stales Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege ). Thus, absent a stay of this civil action, the USA() would receive fundamentally unfair access to defense information and highly prejudicial advance insight into criminal defense 6 The privilege a plies in "instances where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger' of criminal liability. Hoffman'. United States, 341 U.S. 479,486 (1951). 7 This could give the LISAO a tremendous advantage in prosecuting Epstein in the Federal Criminal Action. See Comment, Using Equitable Powers to Coordinate Parallel Civil and Criminal Actions, 98 Harv. L. Rev. 1023, 1030 (1985) (observing that "the prosecutor may have access to detailed civil depositions of the accused witnesses, while the rules of criminal procedure bar the accused from deposing the prosecutor's witnesses"). 9 EFTA00175675

Case 9:08-cv-b,, . 19-KAM Docum....I38 Entered F LSD Docket 08/ ._,2008 Page 11 of 13 strategy. See Comment, 98 Harv. L. Rev. at 1030 ("To the extent that a prosecutor acquires evidence that was elicited from the accused in a parallel civil proceeding, the criminal process becomes less adversarial."). Without a stay in place, discovery will proceed, including against third panics. Mr. Epstein will have no alternative but to issue subpoenas seeking evidence from state and federal law-enforcement officers. For example, Epstein is clearly entitled to discover evidence of prior statements (including inconsistent statements) given by witnesses whom law-enforcement has previously interviewed. See, e.g.. Cox I Treadway. 75 F.3d 230, 239 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that district court properly admitted testimony of prosecutor about prior inconsistent statements that witness made to the prosecutor). Likewise, Epstein may be entitled to discovery of relevant evidence that is in the present possession of the grand jury or other law-enforcement agencies. See, e.g.. Simpson I Hines, 729 F. Supp. 526, 527 (E.D. Tex. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations . . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longer outweighs other concerns."); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co., Inc. I Deerfield Specialty Papers. Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 59 (E.D. Pa. 1980) ("[W]here, as here, the grand jury has completed its work and all that is sought are those documents turned over to the grand jury by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it will be the government, not Mr. Epstein, who will object to discovery in these civil cases, until the final conclusion of the Federal Criminal Action. Conclusion Because these lawsuits arise from the same allegations as the Federal Criminal Action, this Court should stay these cases until that criminal action is no longer pending. 10 EFTA00175676

Case 9:08-cv-8t.. 19-KAM Docurrit—L 38 Entered FLSD Docket 08/,_,2008 Page 12 of 13 Respectfully submitted, LEWIS TEIN, P.L. 3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 Coconut Grove Florida 33133 Tel: Fax: By: GUY A. LEWIS Fla. Bar No. 623740 MICHAEL R. TE1N Fla. Bar No. 993522 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm. h Beach Florida 334 Tel. a Fax. By: Jack A. Goldberger Fla. Bar No. 262013 Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7:I.A.3 While defense counsel admittedly did not confer with plaintiffs' counsel prior to filing the motion to stay, it was by no means in willful disregard of the Local Rule. Shortly after the filing of the motion and before plaintiffs filed their response memoranda suggesting that no conference had taken place, the parties did confer in a good-faith and specific attempt to resolve the motion and were unable to do so, because plaintiffs' counsel would not agree to a stay. Accordingly, the brief delay in conducting the Rule 7.1 conference did not prejudice the plaintiffs at all or result in unnecessary judicial intervention. It is perhaps worth noting that, contrary to their Rule 7.1 certificate, plaintiffs did not confer prior to filing their motion to extend time to file their response memoranda (which extension defendant did not oppose anyway, including on the basis of failure to comply with Rule 7.1). Further information on the reasons the Rule 7.1 conference for the instant motion to stay was conducted after filing the motion to stay will be provided to the Court upon its request, preferably ex pane in order to avoid disclosure of privileged information. The defendant respectfully requests the opportunity to make such an ex pane disclosure in the event that the Court considers denying the motion under Local Rule 7.1.A.3. In any event, we apologize to the Court for non-compliance with the pre-filing requirement of the Rule, would have conferred even sooner had plaintiffs pointed the issue out immediately upon receipt of our motion, did confer with plaintiffs' counsel prior to filing the motion to seal this reply, and commit to precise compliance with the Rule for the remainder of this litigation. te e Jack 'oldberger, Michael Tein II EFTA00175677

• , Case 9:08-cv-L .19-KAM DocunL. et 38 Enterea FLSD Docket 081._..,2008 Page 13 of 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served on July 28, 2008 by U.S. mail on all counsel named on the service list. Michael R. Tein SERVICE LIST Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 12 EFTA00175678

Case 9:08-cv-Su 9-KAM Docurk.. it 33 Entered up FLSD Docket 081u/2008 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstcin's Motion to Stay (DE 12), filed June 20, 2008. The motion is now fully briefed and is ripe for review. The Court has carefully considered the motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant") seeks a stay of this civil action under a federal statute which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is pending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal action and any mention of the civil action during the criminal proceeding is prohibited. As used in this subsection, a criminal action is pending until its final adjudication in the trial court. 18 § 3509 (k). In his motion, Defendant cites a state case, Florida I. Epstein, No. 2006 EFTA00175679

Case 9:08-cv-8, 9-KAM Docuri it 33 Entered cftii FLED Docket 08/v..12008 Page 2 of 5 CF 09454AXX (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2008)1 and a federal case, In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla.), that arise out of the same occurrences and arc pending and thus require a stay of this civil case. The federal "case," according to Defendant, involves a "deferred-prosecution" agreement whereby the U.S. Attorney agreed to suspend its investigation of Defendant while "retaining the right to reactivate the grand jury." (DE 24.) Defendant essentially reasons, because the U.S. Attorney could bring criminal charges against Defendant, that a criminal action is "pending." The Court rejects this definition of a "pending criminal action." When interpreting the text of a statute, the Court begins with the plain meaning of the text. In re Hedrick, 524 F.3d 1175, 1186 (11* Cir. 2008). If the plain meaning of a statute is clear, the Court should not deviate from that interpretation. Id. Pending is defined as "remaining undecided" and "awaiting decision." Blacks Law Dictionary (86 ed. 2004).2 Likewise, an 'As Defendant recognizes, the state court case was "finally adjudicated" and thus no longer pending as of June 30, 2008. (See DE 12.) 'Defendant attempts to argue that the fact that grand jury subpoenas are still "outstanding" and "not withdrawn" and that the grand jury will not be dismissed until Defendant completes his obligations under the state plea agreement means that a "criminal action" is "pending." (Def. Reply 4.) Defendant misunderstands the purpose of a grand jury. A grand jury, as Blackstone writes, is composed of citizens who "inquire, upon their oaths, whether t4re be sufficient cause to call upon the party to answer" the charge of criminal activity. Beavers" Henkel, 194 U.S. 73, 84 (1904) (quoting William Blackstone, 4 Commentaries *303). The grand jury's sole purpose is to inquire into whether there is probable cause to bring an individual before a tribunal to determine his guilt r innocence of an alleged crime. Id. The grand jury is simply an investigative body. See U.S.*. Alred, 144, F.3d 1405, 1413 (11th Cir. 1998). A "criminal action" is not instigated by the calling of a grand jury, because a grand jury is convened "to determine whether a crime has beensorrunitted and whether criminal proceedings should be 1 instituted against any person." U.S. . Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 344 (1974). An "action" is commenced against a person after the grand jury actually finds probable cause to make an individual answer specific charges and renders a bill of indictment against that individual. Until a grand jury's investigation is complete and there has been a determination by a lawful authority that probable cause exists, there can be no criminal action. 2 EFTA00175680

Case .9-KAM Docuri. .t 33 Entered U. . FLSD Docket 08ruu/2008 Page 3 of 5 "action" is defined as a "criminal judicial proceeding." Id. Because the U.S. Attorney has not filed an indictment or an information against Defendant, the Court fails to sec how there is an undecided judicial proceeding in federal court against Defendant. Defendant argues that this statute should be read to include the definition of "criminal action" used in 18 § 1595(b)(2), which reads as follows: "In this subsection, a 'criminal action' includes investigation and prosecution and is pending until final adjudication in the trial court." Defendant argues that "Congress specifically intended that the term 'criminal action' would be applied extremely broadly" under § 1595, so Congress "took pains to ensure that courts would give it the broadest possible construction" and defined "criminal action" as including investigatory stages. (Def. Reply 4.) Defendants argue that the Court should borrow this definition. The Court disagrees. The Court believes that Congress's inclusion of this broader definition under § 1595 evinces Congressional intent to depart from the normal meaning of the term "criminal action."' This addition to the text suggests that Congress knows the plain meaning of the term "criminal action" and that Congress decided, under § 1595, that the definition of "criminal action" should be broader. In contrast, Congress could have made such an addition to § 3509 had it intended the mandatory stay provision to apply to pre-indictment investigations, but it did not. In other words, by not broadening the definition of "criminal action" § 3509, Congress intended that the term should only have its ordinary meaning: that an indictment or information has been filed naming a specific defendant. Instead, it seems clear that 'In fact, Congress made this intent clear by stating that this broader definition of a "criminal action" applied only "in this subsection." 3 EFTA00175681

Case 9:08-cv-fit, . '9-KAM Doom_ t 33 Entered L... FLSD Docket 08rus.,/2005 Page 4 of 5 Congress intended that these two statutory provisions should each have a different scope. Defendant's argument of statutory construction fails. The single case cited by Defendant in support of his motion is not on point. In Doe I Francis, No. 5:03CV260/MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 517847 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005), the stay was entered because criminal charges had been filed against the defendant in a state court several months earlier (i.e., the defendants had been indicted by the state attorney). See Memorandum in Support of Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Outcome of Parallel Criminal Proceedings at 3, Doe 1 iFrancis,No. 5:03CV260/MCIVWCS (N.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2003). The Court agrees with Defendant that a stay under § 3509(k) is mandatory when a criminal action is pending; the Court simply disagrees that the "deferred-prosecution agreement" constitutes a pending criminal action. The Court also does not believe a discretionary stay is warranted. Defendant did not seek this relief in his motion; including such a request in the reply brief is inappropriate. Further, the Court sees no reason to delay this litigation for the next thirty-three months. After all, Defendant is in control of his own destiny — it is up to him (and him alone) whether the plea agreement reached with the State of Florida is breached. If Defendant does not breach the agreement, then he should have no concerns regarding his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The fact that the U.S. Attorney (or other law enforcement officials) may object to some discovery in these civil cases is not, in an of itself, a reason to stay the civil action. Any such issues shall be resolved as they arise in the course of this litigation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: I. Defendant's Motion to Stay (DE 12) is DENIED. 2. Defendant's Motion for Hearing (DE 27) is DENIED AS MOOT. 4 EFTA00175682

Case 9:08-cv-8, .9-KAM Docun .t 33 Entered FLSD Docket 08/,-)/2008 Page 5 of 5 3. Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time to File Response (DE 18) is GRANTED NUNC PRO TUNC. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 4th day of August, 2008. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge Copies furnished to: all counsel of record 5 EFTA00175683

Case 9:08- -,119-KAM Docum,.., 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07h '2008 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. to FILED EX PARTE UNDER SEAL DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO FILE EX PARTE AND UNDER SEAL EFTA00175684

Case 9:08-cv-ud119-KAM Docume.... 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14,2008 Page 2 of 4 Pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4, defendant Jeffrey Epstein hereby moves to file his Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action, as well as this motion, ex parse arid under seal, stating as follows: 1. In support of his motion to stay [DE 12], defendant has herewith filed a Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action. 2. The Notice relates to a confidential agreement between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida and the defendant. 3. The information contained in the Notice is material to this Court's consideration of Epstein's motion to stay. 4. To avoid disclosure of confidential material, Epstein requests leave to file the Notice, and this motion, ex parte and under seal. 5. Pending a ruling from this Court, Epstein has not served this motion or the Notice on counsel for plaintiff. 2 EFTA00175685

Case 9:084-‘,0119-KAM Docume., 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07h ,,2008 Page 3 of 4 WHEREFORE, defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests leave to file this motion and his Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action, a parte and under seal. Respectfully submitted, LEWIS TEIN, P.L. 3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 Coconut Grove Florida 33133 Tel: Fax: By: GUY A. LEWIS Fla. Bar No. 623740 MICHAEL R. TEIN Fla. Bar No. 993522 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach Florida 33401 Tel. Fax. By: JACK A. GOLDBERGER Fla. Bar No. 262013 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 3 EFTA00175686

Case 9:08-cv-,,0119-KAM DocurnL.., 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07h „2008 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that this motion, in accordance with S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4, has not been served on opposing counsel and was filed under seal on July 10, 2008. Michael R. Tein 4 EFTA00175687

Case 9:08- ,..,./119-KAM Documt,.., 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/ ,2008 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. O co I N 1 O 1.7 FILED EX PARTE UNDER SEAL EFTA00175688