EFTA00175717

Case 9:08-cv-t 
.2-KAM 
Document 41 
Enterer 
FLSD Docket 10/C 
)8 
Page 6 of 10 
Case No. CV-80232-Marra-Johnson 
Page No. 6 
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). 
Count III — "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 
U.S.C. 82422" - is subject to dismissal as Plaintiff has failed to state a claim 
upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Count III also contains an 
Immaterial reference to 28 U.S.C. §2255, 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 U.S.C. §2422." In her prayer for relief in 
Count III, Plaintiff "demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for all 
damages available under 28 U.S.C. §2255(a), 
." 
Although the reference to "28 U.S.C. §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: 
EFTA00175737

Case 9:08-cv-k 
)2-KAM 
Document 41 
Enterer 
FLSD Docket 10/C 
)8 
Page 7 of 10 
Case No. CV-80232-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 2241(c) 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 Plaintiff's complaint, 18 U.S.C. 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 U.S.C. 2422. Rather, Plaintiff has 
alleged conclusory allegations simply attempting to track parts of the statutory language 
EFTA00175738

Case 9:08-cv-k 
,2-KAM 
Document 41 
Entere' 
FLSD Docket 10/C 
)8 
Page 8 of 10 
Case No. CV-80232-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. Plaintiffs 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 U.S.C. §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 U.S.C. 
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 U.S.C. 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 III 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 U.S.C. 
§2422(b) and §2455. 
EFTA00175739

Case 9:08-cv-& 
)2-KAM 
Document 41 
Enter& 
Case No. CV-80232-Marra-Johnson 
Page No. 9 
FLSD Docket 10/C 
)8 
Page 9 of 10 
Conclusion 
As discussed above herein, under the pleading standard established in Twombly,
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). Plaintiff's 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 6'" day of  October, 2008: 
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. 
Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. 
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 
18205 Biscayne Boulevard 
Suite 2218 
60 
Fax: 
Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 
Jack Alan Goldberger 
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
ach, FL 33401-5012 
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 
EFTA00175740

Case 9:08-cv-8L 
2-KAM 
Document 41 
Entered 
CLSD Docket 10/06i 
8 
Page 10 of 10 
Case No. CV-80232-Marra-Johnson 
Page No. 10 
Respectfully submitte 
By: 
ROBERT D. CR 
ON, JR., ESQ. 
Florida Bar No. 224162 
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. 
Florida Bar #617296 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
West 
ach, FL 33401 
Phone 
Fax 
ounsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 
EFTA00175741

Case 9:08-cv- 
32-KAM 
Document 50 
Entere 
1 FLSD Docket 0: 
/2009 
Page 1 of 8 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 3, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 
Plaintiff, Jane Doe No.3 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey 
Epstein, as follows: 
Parties,Jurisdielion and Venue 
1. 
Jane Doe is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, and is sui juris. 
2, 
This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the 
Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon her 
when she was a minor. 
3. 
Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. 
4. 
This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million. 
5. 
This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. § I332(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 U.S.C. §1391(a) as a substantial 
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. 
- I - 
EFTA00175742

Case 9:013-cv• 
:32-KAM 
Document 50 
Entere 
i FLSD Docket 0: 
'/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 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. 
An integral player in Epstein's Florida scheme was 
a Palm Beach 
Community College student from Loxahatchee, Florida. She recruited girls ostensibly to give a 
wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation in his Palm Beach mansion. Under Epstein's 
plan, Ms 
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 directed Ms. Mto 
bring 
one or more underage girls to the residence. a 
upon information and belief, generally 
sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from Loxahatchee and surrounding areas 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 - 
EFTA00175743

Case 9:08-cv- 
:32-KAM 
Document 50 
Entere 
FLSD Docket 0: 
72009 
Page 3 of 8 
11. 
Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Upon arrival at 
Epstein's mansion, the victim would be brought to the kitchen. She would then be led up a flight of 
stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. Once the girl was 
alone in this room, Epstein would enter wearing only a towel to cover his private area. He then 
would lay down on the massage table and perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, 
including 
and touching the girl sexually. 
12. 
Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, Ms. 
recruited Jane Doe to 
give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. Ms. 
brought Jane to Epstein's mansion 
in Palm Beach. Jane was led up the flight of stairs to the room with the massage table. She was 
alone in the room when Epstein arrived wearing a towel to cover his private parts. He laid down on 
the massage table, and sexually assaulted Jane Doc during the massagc. In addition, Jeffrey Epstein 
masturbated during the massage. 
13. 
After Epstein had completed the assault, he left the room. Jane was then able to leave 
the room and go back down the stairs. She then met Ms. 
again who brought Jane home. 
Jane was paid $200 by Epstein. Ms. as 
also paid by Epstein for bringing Jane to him. 
14. 
As a result of this encounter with Epstein, the 16-year old Jane experienced trauma, 
shock, confusion, shame, humiliation and embarrassment. 
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 
- 3 - 
EFTA00175744

Case 9:08-cv- 
!32-KAM 
Document 50 
Entere 
1 FLSD Docket 0: 
'12009 
Page 4 of 8 
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 Doc No. 3 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 11 
Intentional 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 
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-
EFTA00175745

Case 9:08-cv 
!32-KAM 
Document 50 
Enterc 
i FLSD Docket 
'/2009 
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. 3 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey 
Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this 
Court deems just and proper. 
COUNT III 
Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. 82422 
28. 
Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 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 Plaintiff Jane Doe, Epstein could have been charged with criminal violations of 
Florida Statute §796.07(2) (including subsections (e), (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 18 U.S.C. §2422. 
- 5 - 
EFTA00175746

Case 9:08-cv, 
!32-KAM 
Document 50 
Entere 
i FLSD Docket 0: 
'/2009 
Page 6 of 8 
33. 
As a result of Epstein's violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422, Plaintiff has suffered personal 
injury, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. 
34. 
Plaintiff hired Herman & Mennelstein, P.A., in this matter and agreed to pay them a 
reasonable attorneys' fcc. 
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 3 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey 
Epstein for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. §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, 2009 
Respectfully submitted, 
By: 
s/ Adam D. Horowitz 
Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) 
Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) 
MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 
Miami, Florida 33160 
Tel: 
Fax: 
- 6 - 
EFTA00175747

Case 9:08-cvd, 
32-KAM 
Document 50 
Entere, 
n FLSD Docket 01. 
'/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. Ilorowitz 
- 7 - 
EFTA00175748

Case 9:08-cv- 
!32-KAM 
Document 50 
Entere 
1 FLED Docket 0: 
72009 
Page 8 of 8 
SERVICE LIST 
DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida 
Jack Alan Goldber er Esq. 
Robert D. Critton Es . 
/s/ Adam D. Horowitz 
- 8 - 
EFTA00175749

Case 9:08-cv. 
?32-KAM 
Document 61 
Enter( 
n FLSD Docket 0 
2/2009 
Page 1 of 7 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-CV.80232-MARRA-JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 3 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
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. 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 - "[lit 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 
EFTA00175750

Ca'se 9:08-cv 
?32-KAM 
Document 61 
Enter( 
n FLSD Docket 0. 
?/2009 
Page 2 of 7 
Jane Doe No. 3'. 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. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy'. 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-
EFTA00175751

Case 9:08-cv 
232-KAM 
Document 61 
Enter( 
FLSD Docket 0 
2/2009 
Page 3 of 7 
Jane Doe No. 3'. Epstein 
Page 3 
incrimination. See DeLisi I. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 
1983); Malloy'. 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 - "Up 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. Clv. 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. 
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 I. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); 
Malloy 
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 - "[l]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the 
EFTA00175752

Case 9:08-cv. 
232-KAM 
Document 61 
Enter( 
n FLSD Docket 0 
?/2009 
Page 4 of 7 
Jane Doe No. 3'. 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 DeLlsi I. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); 
Malloy'. Hawn, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination 
Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment - "lilt would be incongruous to have different standards determine the 
validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on 
whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."). 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d 
§1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must 
treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 
EFTA00175753

Case 9:08-cv. 
232-KAM 
Document 61 
Enter( 
n FLSD Docket 0 
?/2009 
Page 5 of 7 
Jane Doe No. 3 
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 1 Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); 
Malloy 1 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 - "[ilt 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 
EFTA00175754

Case 9:08-cv 
232-KAM 
Document 61 
Enter( 
n FLSD Docket 0 
?/2009 
Page 6 of 7 
Jane Doe No. 3'. 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 Plaintiff's 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 re ' f sought by Plaintiff. 
Robert D. C itton, Jr. 
Attorney f. 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 rec9rAldentified on the following Service List in the 
manner specified by CM/ECF on thisfeay of  April  , 2009: 
EFTA00175755

Case 9:08-cv 
232-KAM 
Document 61 
Enter( 
In FLSD Docket 0 
2/2009 
Page 7 of 7 
Jane Doe No. 3'. Epstein 
Page 7 
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. 
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 
18205 Biscayne Boulevard 
Suite 2218 
' 
60 
Fax: 
Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 
Jack Alan Goldberger 
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
ach, FL 33401-5012 
Fax: 
Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
Respectfully subm 
d, 
By: 
ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. 
Florida Bar o. 224162 
rcritabcIclaw.com 
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. 
BUR
 , 
LUTTIER & COLEMAN 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
ach, FL 33401 
Phone 
Fax 
(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 
EFTA00175756