EFTA00185206

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 17 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
VS. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 3, 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 4, 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
VS. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 5, 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
EFTA00185206

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 17 
JANE DOE NO. 6, 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 7, 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
C.M.A., 
Plaintiff, 
VS. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-808 I I -MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, 
Defendants. 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON 
-2-
EFTA00185207

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 17 
DOE II, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, 
Defendants. 
CASE NO.: 09-C V-80469-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 101, 
CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 102 
CASE NO.: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON 
Plaintiff, 
VS. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER 
REOUESTING POSITION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY [DE 991 
Comes now the United States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States 
Attorney, and files this response to the Court's Order requesting the position of the United 
States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99]. For the reasons 
set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay of the proceedings is not necessary 
and was not contemplated by the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States and 
Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. 
-3-
EFTA00185208

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 17 
ISSUE PRESENTED 
The United States is not a party to these lawsuits and, accordingly, is not fully aware 
of the scope of the proceedings, the range of arguments presented by counsel, and any 
correspondence or oral communications between the parties in these civil suits. Based on 
the information presented by the Court and a review of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion 
to Stay and/or Continue Action for Time Certain Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal 
Proceedings with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Court File No. 08-CV-80811-
MARRA/JOHNSON DE SI-I), and responses thereto filed by various plaintiffs in their suits, 
the undersigned understands that the Court has requested the position of the United States 
on the following issue: 
Are there "special circumstances" that require the imposition of a stay of the 
civil proceedings in the "interests of justice" until the "expiration" of the Non-
Prosecution Agreement ["NPA"] between the United States and Epstein? 
By filing this response, the United States does not make itself a party to this litigation 
and takes no position with respect to the outcome of any of the civil suits; nor does the 
United States take any position regarding Defendant Epstein's performance of hi s obligations 
pursuant to the NPA. The United States also declines to comment on Defendant Epstein's 
representations regarding past allegations of violations of the NPA by Epstein. The United 
States files this response solely as amicus curiae at the Court's request and does not waive 
any procedural or statutory bars to suit. 
-4-
EFTA00185209

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 17 
I. 
STANDARD FOR IMPOSING A DISCRETIONARY STAY 
A. 
The Defendant Must Show that the Assertion of His Fifth 
Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Would 
Automatically Result in the Entry of Summary Judgment Against 
Him. 
"The decision whether or not to stay civil litigation in deference to parallel criminal 
proceedings is discretionary.... A movant must carry a heavy burden to succeed in such an 
endeavor." Microfinancial, Inc.. Premier Holidays Internal?, Inc., 385 F.3d 72, 77 (1st 
Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). When a defendant facing possible criminal liability invokes 
his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination in connection with civil 
litigation, a court can stay discovery or the entire civil case. Diaz'. Jenne, 2007 WL 624286 
al (S.D. Fl. Feb. 23, 2007) (Cooke, J.). "However, 'the Constitution does not require a stay 
of civil proceedings pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings. Forcing an 
individual to risk non-criminal disadvantage by remaining silent for fear of self incrimination 
in a parallel criminal proceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional 
infringement.'" Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co.'. Alan° Assocs., Inc., 866 F. Supp. 536, 540 
(M.D. Fl. 1994)). 
As this Court has previously explained: 
The law regardii stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. 
In United States 
Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Fla, 23 F.3d 359, 363-
65 (11th Cir. 1994) ("Lot 5"), the Court articulated the following principles of 
law with respect to a stay of a civil action pending resolution of a related 
criminal action: 
[A] blanket assertion of the privilege is an inadequate basis for 
the issuance of a stay. Rather, a court must stay a civil 
-5-
EFTA00185210

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 6 of 17 
proceeding pending resolution of a related criminal prosecution 
only when "special circumstances" so require in the "interests 
ofjustice." The court may deny a stay so long as the privilege's 
invocation does not compel an adverse judgment against the 
claimant. 
• 
• 
• 
Mhe standard set by the Eleventh Circuit as to when a stay should be granted 
to prevent unconstitutional infringement is more narrow. The law in the 
Eleventh Circuit requires consideration of whether, as a result of invoking the 
privilege, the defendant faces certain loss of the civil proceeding on summary 
judgment if the civil proceeding were to continue. Lot 5, 23 F.3d at 364; 
Pervis I. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 901 F.2d 944 (1 I th Cir. 1990). 
Under this standard, Movants must show that invocation of the privilege in the 
instant matter will result in certain loss by automatic summary judgment. 
United States'. Two Parcels of Real Property, 92 F.3d 1123, 1129 (11th Cir. 
1996); Pervis, 901 F.2d at 946-47. This must be an actual adverse judgment, 
and not "merely the loss of the defendant's most `effective defense."' 
Securities & Exchange Comm.'. Incendy, 936 F. Supp. at 955 (S.D. Fl. 1996); 
Shell Oil Co., 866 F. Supp. at 540-41. 
Court-Appointed Receiver of Lancer Mgt. Group LLCI. Lauer, 2009 WL 800144 (S.D. Fl. 
Mar. 25, 2009) (Marra, J.). 
Thus, before reaching the relative benefit and prejudice to each of the parties caused 
by staying the cases, the Court must determine whether, if defendant Epstein were to invoke 
his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination' and the Court were to allow an adverse 
inference to be drawn therefrom, an adverse judgment against Epstein would be 
automatically compelled. The United States respectfully submits that it would not. 
'It appears from a brief review of some of' Epstein's discovery responses that Epstein has 
made a blanket assertion of the privilege. For example, Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment 
privilege in response to a plaintiff's request to produce the NPA and the United States' list of 
identified victims although these documents were provided to Epstein by the United States. 
-6-
EFTA00185211

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 7 of 17 
From a review of the Complaints filed by the plaintiffs in these cases, it appears that 
some have filed claims based upon Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, some have 
filed claims based upon common law torts, and some have filed a combination of the two. 
Under general principles of tort law, a plaintiff is required to prove: (1) that the defendant 
committed a bad act; (2) that the plaintiff suffered damages; and (3) that the damages were 
caused by the defendant's bad act. To succeed on a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a plaintiff 
must show: (1) that the plaintiff is a person who, while a minor, was a victim of an 
enumerated offense committed by the defendant; (2) that the person suffered personal injury 
as a result of that violation; and (3) the amount of damages she sustained. 
Epstein's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege could result in the drawing of 
a negative inference only as to the first element under both of these claims. Therefore, to 
succeed on summary judgment (or at trial), the plaintiffs would still have to prove that they 
suffered personal injury/damages as a result of the defendant's bad act. CI In re Financial 
Federated Title & Trust, Inc., 252 B.R. 834, 838 (S.D. Fl. Bank. Ct. 2000) (Stay not 
warranted in bankruptcy proceeding where criminal indictment was pending because 
negative inference related only to defendant's receipt of allegedly fraudulent transfers, but 
"Trustee must still cant' the burden of proving all of the elements of his complaint for 
fraudulent transfers ... includ[ing] fraudulent intent, insolvency, and financial condition at 
the time of the transfers to the Defendants."). 
While Epstein may believe that his arguments and proof as to the first element are his 
"most effective defense," that alone is insufficient to warrant the imposition of a stay of the 
-7-
EFTA00185212

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 8 of 17 
litigation. There are two other items for the Court to consider in deciding this issue. First, 
pursuant to the terms of the NPA, as to those victims identified by the United States, Epstein 
has already made a concession that they are victims of an enumerated offense committed by 
Epstein. Thus, this inference is drawn not due to his invocation of the right against self-
incrimination but due to his entry into a contractual agreement with the United States for 
which the identified victims are third-party beneficiaries? Second, in Lot 5, the Eleventh 
Circuit pointed out the wealth of evidence other than the defendant's testimony that could 
be used to defeat a liability claim. See Lot 5, 23 F.3d at 364 ("Thus, Claimant's assertion that 
only her own testimony could vindicate her is groundless; other participants to the illegal acts 
that gave rise to the forfeiture were available to testify at trial. Claimant's failure to indicate 
with precision why she did not use other parties' testimony to substantiate her defense was 
fatal."). For example, Epstein could mount a defense using effective cross-examination, 
telephone records, travel records, documents within the possession of the plaintiffs or third 
parties, and/or the testimony of third parties to rebut the plaintiffs' proof. 
2The United States notes that it is not aware of the identities of all of the plaintiffs in the civil 
suits. To the extent that any are not "identified victims" under the NPA, this contractual provision 
would not apply. 
-8-
EFTA00185213

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 9 of 17 
B. 
Additional Factors to Consider in Balancing the Prejudice to the 
Parties 
If the Court is persuaded that the negative inference drawn from Epstein's assertion 
of his Fifth Amendment privilege would result in an automatic grant of summary judgment 
in favor of the plaintiffs, then the Court must engage in a balancing of equities in determining 
whether there are "special circumstances" warranting the imposition of a stay "'to prevent 
a party from suffering substantial and irreparable prejudice."' Securites and Exchange 
Comm in t. Incendy, 936 F. Supp. 952, 956 (S.D. Fl. 1996) (quoting S.E.C.I. First Financial 
Group of Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 668 (5th Cir. 1981) (add'I citations omitted). 
Examples of "special circumstances" provided by the Supreme Court in 
[United States'. Kordel] are: (I) if the Government brought the civil action 
solely to obtain evidence for its criminal prosecution, (2) if the Government 
failed to advise the defendant in the civil proceeding that it contemplates his 
criminal prosecution; (3) if the defendant is without counsel or reasonably 
fears prejudice from adverse pretrial publicity or other unfair injury; or (4) any 
other special circumstances indicating unconstitutionality or even impropriety. 
Incendy at 956 (citing United States' Kordel, 397 U.S. I, 11 (1970)). See also Securities 
and Exchange Comm'nl. Wright, 261 Fed. Appx. 259, 263 (11th Cir. 2008) ("[N]o 'special 
circumstances' existed in this case warranting a stay, as there is no record evidence 
suggesting the Government had brought the civil case solely to obtain evidence for the 
criminal prosecution or that the criminal case against [defendant] was unconstitutional or 
inappropriately instituted."). 
No "special circumstances" exist here. First, unlike Wright and Incendy, the United 
States Government is not a party to the civil litigation. Each suit is brought on behalf of an 
-9-
EFTA00185214

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 10 of 17 
individual plaintiff represented by private counsel. Some of those plaintiffs are adverse to 
the United States and have filed suit against the Government based upon its handling of the 
criminal case against Epstein. (See In re Jane Doe Litigation, Court File No. 08-80736-Cil-
Marra.) There has been no allegation, and certainly no showing, that the civil litigation is 
a ruse to obtain discovery on behalf of the criminal investigation. 
As some of the plaintiffs have mentioned, one purpose of the NPA was to place the 
identified victims in the same position where they would have been if Epstein had been 
convicted after trial of an offense enumerated in .18 U.S.C. § 2255. (See, e.g., Court File No. 
08-CV-80119 DE 49-2.) If Epstein had proceeded to trial and been convicted, those victims 
would have been entitled to restitution and to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and 
would have been entitled to the same sorts of discovery that they now seek. None of the 
plaintiffs has contacted the United States about passing on materials gathered through 
discovery to any criminal investigators or about seeking discovery that would be relevant 
only to the criminal proceedings, rather than to their individual cases. If Epstein has 
legitimate concerns that the civil discovery process is being abused in some way, he can ask 
the Court for a protective order limiting the scope of discovery or its distribution. 
Furthermore, if at some time in the future, Epstein were the subject of a criminal indictment 
and he alleged that the evidence to be used against him was gathered improperly, he could 
file a motion to suppress or to dismiss the indictment in that criminal action. See, e.g., United 
States, ex. rel. Westrickl. Second Chance, 2007 WL 1020808 '4 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2007) 
(Defendant in civil False Claims Act suit moved to stay civil action pending criminal 
-10-
EFTA00185215

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 11 of 17 
investigation where no indictment had been returned. The district court denied the motion, 
noting that while "allowing civil discovery to proceed may afford the government [who was 
the real party in interest in the civil case] the opportunity to gain evidence that it may not be 
entitled to under the more restrictive criminal discovery rules, if and when discovery 
becomes necessary, protective orders and other remedial measures may be taken.") (citations 
omitted). 
By entering into the NPA, with its explicit discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein 
acknowledged that the United States was trying to protect the victims' rights to restitution 
and that civil claims would likely follow. Epstein did not bargain for a stay of those 
proceedings. Instead, both parties received benefits and gave consideration for the bargain 
that was struck —while Epstein is faced with answering discovery requests that he would not 
face during criminal proceedings, he also is entitled to the identification of and extensive 
discovery from the victims, which he would not have received in the criminal case. Based 
upon a review of the discovery requests he has promulgated thus far, it appears that Epstein 
is taking full advantage of this benefit and if a criminal case were ever filed, he would, no 
doubt, seek to use that information in his defense.3
3With respect to the other "special circumstances" mentioned in Incendy, the government 
obviously advised Epstein of the potential for criminal charges, and that knowledge led to the 
negotiation of the NPA. Epstein also has a number of attorneys listed on the Service List for the 
civil cases and has retained a similarly large number of attomeys to handle the criminal investigation 
and negotiation of the NPA. Epstein alleges a fear of adverse publicity, but as the plaintiffs have 
pointed out, during the course of the state and federal criminal investigations, Epstein's personal 
publicist distributed stories to the press impugning the credibility of the victims and other witnesses 
and averring that the victims' allegations of abuse were made solely to extract money from the 
defendant. In the context of some of the civil suits currently pending, Epstein has asked the Court 
-11-
EFTA00185216

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 12 of 17 
Unlike Wright and Incendy, Epstein also has not been criminally indicted. In some 
districts, this alone is virtually dispositive. See, e.g., Sterling Nall Bank'. A-I Hotels 
Internal 7, 175 F. Supp. 2d 573, 576-77 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("district courts in this Circuit 
'generally grant the extraordinary remedy of a stay only after the defendant seeking a stay 
has been indicted.'" (quoting Citibank, N.A. Hakim, 1993 WL 481335 *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 
18, 1993) (add'I citations omitted). As one court explained: 
the consensus that a party seeking a stay bears a heavier burden when he has 
not yet been indicted derives logically from the balancing test set out by the 
courts of appeals that have considered the question. When a defendant has 
been indicted, his situation is particularly dangerous, and takes a certain 
priority, for the risk to his liberty, the importance of safeguarding his 
constitutional rights, and even the strain on his resources and attention that 
makes defending satellite civil litigation particularly difficult, all weigh in 
favor of his interest. Moreover, if the potential prejudice to the defendant is 
particularly high post-indictment, the prejudice to the plaintiff of staying 
proceedings is somewhat reduced, since the criminal litigation has reached a 
crisis that will lead to a reasonably speedy resolution. Furthermore, at that 
stage in the criminal proceeding, the contours of the indictment will provide 
the Court with a reasonable basis for determining the extent of the threat to the 
defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, and the likely extent and timing of the 
criminal litigation. 
Pre-indictment, these factors must be balanced significantly differently. 
Though many of the same risks to the civil defendant are present, the dangers 
are at least somewhat more remote, and it is inherently unclear to the Court 
just how much the unindicted defendant really has to fear. Conversely, the 
delay imposed on the plaintiff is potentially indefinite. There is no telling how 
complicated the government's investigation may be, whether the allegations 
of the particular civil plaintiff are merely the tip of an iceberg that will result 
in a lengthy and open-ended investigation, what priority the government 
assigns to the investigation, whether it will result in charges that will have to 
to unseal the victims' names so that he may make use similar press efforts to impugn their 
credibility. 
-12-
EFTA00185217

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 13 of 17 
be litigated, or how time-consuming the resulting criminal case will be. Under 
these circumstances, the likelihood that a civil party can make the necessary 
showing to obtain the "extraordinary" remedy of a stay is inevitably much 
reduced. 
Sterling Nat'l Bank, 175 F. Supp. 2d at 577 (internal citations omitted). 
The First Circuit has noted that the decision whether to grant a stay "is highly nuanced 
... [and] involves competing interests. Balancing these interests is a situation-specific task, 
and an inquiring court must take a careful look at the idiosyncratic circumstances of the case 
before it." Microfinancial, supra, 385 F.3d at 78. Epstein's case is more idiosyncratic than 
most. 
As the Court aptly noted in its Order denying Epstein's first motion to stay the civil 
proceedings, Epstein has not been indicted and there are no criminal proceedings pending 
against him.' The resurrection of criminal proceedings against Epstein lies entirely within 
Epstein's own hands, by performing or not performing under the terms of the NPA. This tips 
the balance of equities even further in favor of the plaintiffs. Epstein makes allegations that 
the U.S. Attorney's Office has unfettered discretion in determining breaches of the NPA, but 
this is no different than in any contractual setting. If one party believes that there has been 
a breach, it may seek the remedy set forth in the contract. If the other party believes that 
'Epstein points to provisions requiring him to maintain certain evidence "inviolate" as proof 
that the grand jury investigation is still active. These provisions are meant only to insure that easily 
destroyed evidence identified through the investigation, such as computer equipment, that is still in 
Epstein's control, will still be available to investigators if Epstein does, in fact, breach the NPA. 
Epstein is well aware that litigation concerning those matters have been removed from the Court's 
docket, at the insistence of the United States, because it fully halted its investigation in accordance 
with the terms of the NPA. 
-13-
EFTA00185218

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 14 of 17 
there has been no breach, it has a remedy at law or equity. In this situation, Epstein would 
be entitled to seek dismissal of the indictment. See United States. Beeks, 167 Fed. Appx 
777 (1 I th Cir. 2006); United States. Diaz, 138 Fed. Appx. 965 (9th Cir. 2005); United 
States'. Davis, 393 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2004). 
Epstein argues that because he is seeking a finite period of delay - until the time that 
he asserts that the NPA "expires" — and that, thereafter, he will promptly provide full and 
complete responses to all discovery, the harm to the plaintiffs is de minimis. With all respect, 
this overlooks a number of obvious issues. First, if a stay is imposed until Epstein's 
proposed "expiration date," it affords Epstein one of two incentives: (a) to delay any intended 
breach until a time when he believes that the United States has no remedy and then to breach 
the agreement with impunity (Le, to use the NPA as a shield and a sword); or (b) to delay the 
civil litigation as long as possible (until shortly before the "expiration" of the NPA), and 
then, after criminal charges have been filed, to seek a mandatory stay of the civil cases until 
the criminal case is resolved. Thus, contrary to the assertions of Epstein, the delay is not 
limited but, instead, is "potentially indefinite," as Sterling Bank warns. If the U.S. Attorney's 
Office were to proceed criminally, the litigation would likely be very lengthy, and would 
result in an even greater delay to the plaintiffs? 
'The United States also notes that this finite termination to Epstein's exposure to potential 
criminal consequences is illusory. The NPA addresses only certain victims identified during the 
course of the government's investigation. To the extent that any of the plaintiffs who have already 
filed suit against Epstein do not fall within that group, the NPA does not address potential charges 
based upon crimes committed against them. The NPA also does not bind any other state or federal 
prosecutor from pursuing charges for criminal acts committed within their jurisdiction(s). The 
federal statute of limitations for offenses against children is ten years or the life of the child, 
-14-
EFTA00185219

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 15 of 17 
The factors to consider include: "(i) the interests of the civil plaintiff in proceeding 
expeditiously with the civil litigation, including the avoidance of any prejudice to the 
plaintiff should a delay transpire; (ii) the hardship to the defendant, including the burden 
placed upon him should the cases go forward in tandem; (iii) the convenience of both the 
civil and criminal courts; (iv) the interests of third parties; .. . (I) the public interest[;] 
(vi) the good faith of the litigants (or the absence of it) and (vii) the status of the cases." 
Microfinancial, 385 F.3d at 78 (citations omitted). 
In considering those factors, the United States respectfully recommends to the Court 
that all of the factors weigh against a stay. In making its decision, the Court should consider 
that, unlike all of the cases cited herein, Epstein seeks to stay not one suit involving a single 
plaintiff, but more than a dozen suits filed by individual plaintiffs. Each of those plaintiffs, 
in turn, impliedly asserts that she is a "crime victim" with the "right to full and timely 
restitution" and the "right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay." 18 U.S.C. § 
3771(aX6) & (7). As noted above, one of the purposes of the NPA was to provide these 
rights to victims identified in the Government's investigation. Thus, this factor weighs more 
heavily for the plaintiffs than in the average civil dispute as it embodies both the plaintiffs' 
and the public's interests. The victims who were identified in the government investigation, 
by and large, were without financial assets and had significant counseling needs that could 
whichever is longer. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Thus, for Epstein (or any other person accused of sexually 
abusing children) to "wait out" any chance of criminal liability, the court would have to stay civil 
litigation until all of the plaintiffs have died. 
-I5-
EFTA00185220

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 16 of 17 
be remedied through obtaining restitution from Epstein. In addition to those needs, they have 
legitimate concerns about memories fading, witnesses becoming unavailable, and dissipation 
of Epstein's assets while the matter is stayed. On the other hand, while the potential harm 
to the defendant normally weighs in the defendant's favor, in this case, Epstein has 
significant control over whether the criminal investigation remains in abeyance and whether 
criminal charges are ever filed. 
CONCLUSION 
In accordance with the Court's Order, the United States hereby submits that it is not 
aware of any "special circumstances" that warrant staying all of the civil cases pending the 
"expiration" of the NPA. 
Respectfully submitted, 
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
By: 
ssistant United States Attorne 
500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor 
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
-16-
EFTA00185221

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 17 of 17 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 28, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing 
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel 
for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. 
ssistant United States Attorney 
_17_
EFTA00185222

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 
W t 
1 
ch, FL 33401 
Facsimile: 
January 24, 2007 
DELIVERY BY HAND 
James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 
250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 
Re: 
Federal Grand Jury Subpoena 
Dear Jim: 
A new grand jury has been emaLlsed and I have enclosed a new subpoena for= 
As I mentioned earlier, Ms.M is not a target of this investigation and the United 
States seeks her testimony solely as a victim/witness. During our last conversation regarding 
Ms. =, 
you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us pursuant to a Kastigar 
letter and that she also was unwilling to speak with the grand jury and intends to invoke the 
Fifth Amendment if questioned. Please confer with her to confirm whether this remains her 
position. If it is, please advise in writing. Even if Ms. 
is inclined to invoke her Fifth 
Amendment rights, she must still appear pursuant to the subpoena so that I may ask her 
questions that would not require the invocation of the Fifth Amendment. If she still invokes, 
I intend to move to compel her answers. If you or your client is unavailable on February 6, 
2007, please let me know of another Tuesday when you are available. 
I also am concerned about a potential conflict of interest in your representation of Ms. 
. In case of future litigation regarding this issue, please provide me with I *All tion 
regarding who is paying (directly or indirectly) for your services on behalf of Ms. 
, the 
scope of your representation and whether you are taking direction on this matter from 
anyone other than Ms. =. 
If any formal or informal joint defense agreements exist, 
whether in writing or otherwise, please provide a copy of such agreements. If the agreement 
is purely oral, please provide a written summary of its terms. 
GOVERNMENT 
EXHIBIT 
EFTA00185223

JAMES EISENBERG, ESQ. 
JANUARY 24, 2007 
PAGE 2 
I look forward to your response. 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
By: 
Assistant United States Attorney 
EFTA00185224

United States District Court 
TO: 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY 
SUBPOENA FOR: 
PERSON 
ri 
DOCUMENTS OR OBJECT[S] 
X 
X 
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testifybefore theMof 
the United States District 
Court at the place, date and time specified'below. 
PLACE: 
United States District Courthouse 
701 Clematis Street 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
ROOM: 
DATE AND TIME: 
February 6, 2007 
I:00pm* 
YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following documcnt(s) or object(s): 
ANY AND ALL NOTES, LE 
HS YOU HAVE RECEIVED 
FROM JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
THER PRINTED OR DIGITAL, OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
ANY AND AIL II-MAILS, INSTANT MESSAGES, CHATS, TEXT MESSAGES, VOICBMAILS; OR TELEPHONE 
MESSAGES THAT YOU HAVE SENT TO AND/OR RECEIVED FROM JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
*Please coordinate your compliance 
u 
d confirm the date and time, and location of 
our a 
earance with Special Agent 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone: 
This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf 
of the court. 
CLERK 
(BY) DEPUTY CLERIC 
This subpoena is issued upon application 
of the United States of America 
DATE: 
January 23, 2007 
Name Address and Ph ne thimber of Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 So. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach. FL 33401-6235 
Tel: 
Fax: 
*If not applicable, enter "nom." 
TOM ampw litoorA0110 
FORM ORD-227 
JAN.86 
EFTA00185225