EFTA00181807

44 Y 
EFTA00182027

.Case9:0&,m,430119-KAM 
Document113-2 
EnteredonFLSDDocket05/22/2009 
Page2of4 
1
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
Defendant. 
8 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
STATE OF FLORIDA ) 
vs 
. ) 
CASE NO. 06 CF9454AMB 
08 9381.CFAMB 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
) 
9 ' 
• PLEA CONFERENCE 
10 
11 
PRESIDING: HONORABLE DEBORAH DALE PUCILLO 
12 
APPEARANCES: 
13 
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: 
BARRY E. KRISCHER, ESQUIRE 
14 
State Attorney 
401 North Dixie Highway 
15 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
By: 
LANNA BELOHLAVEK, ESQUIRE 
16 
Assistant State Attorney 
17 
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: 
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS,P.A. 
18 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
19 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
By: JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE 
20 
21 
22 
CERTIFIED COPY 
23 
June 30_ 2008 
24 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
25 
Beginning at 8:40 o'clock, a.m. 
PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
EFTA00182028

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 113-2 
EnteredonFLSDDocket05/22/2009 
Page 3 of 4 
20 
1 
regularly congregate? 
2 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: I personally do not 
3 
know. 
4 
THE COURT: Neither do I, which is 
why I'm asking. Has that been 
6 
investigated? 
7 
MR. GOLDBERGER: We have done our due 
8 
diligence, for what it's worth, there is a 
9 
residential street. There are not children 
10 
congregating on that street. We think the 
11 
address applies, if it doesn't, we fully 
12 
recognize that he can't live there. 
13 
THE COURT: Okay. D is, you shall 
14 
not have any contact with the victim, are 
15 
there more than one victim? 
16 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: There's several. 
17 
THE COURT: Several, all of the 
18 
victims. So this should be plural. I'm 
19 
making that plural. You are not to have 
20 
any contact direct or indirect, and in this 
21 
day and age I find it necessary to go over 
22 
exactly what we mean by indirect. By 
23 
indirect, we mean no text messages, no 
24 
e.amail, no Face Book, no My Space, no 
25 
telephone calls, no voice mails, no 
PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
EFTA00182029

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 113-2 
Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 
Page 4 of 4 
21 
1 
messages through carrier pigeon, no 
2 
messages through third parties, no hey 
3 
would you tell so and so for me, no having 
4 
a friend, acquaintance or stranger approach 
5 
any of these victims with a message of any 
6 
sort from you, is that clear? 
.7 
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am 
8 
THE COURT: And then it states, 
9 
unless approved by the victim, the 
10 
therapist and the sentencing court. Okay. 
11 
THE DEFENDANT: I understand. 
12 
THE COURT: And the sentencing court. 
13 
So, if there is a desire which, I would 
14 
think would be a bit strange to have 
15 
contact with any of the victims the court 
16 
must approve it. 
17 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: Correct. 
18 
THE COURT: If the victim was under 
19 
the age of 18, which was the Case, you 
20 
shall not until you have successfully 
21 
attended and completed the sex offender 
22 
program. So, is this sex offender program 
23 
becoming a condition of probation? 
24 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: That is not. I 
25 
don't believe I circled that one. 
PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
EFTA00182030

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 113-2 
Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 
Page 1 of 4 
EXHIBIT A 
to 
Plaintiffs Jane Doe 101 and Jane Doe 102's 
Motion for No-Contact Order 
EFTA00182031

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
Related Cases: 
08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092, 
DECLARATION OF ADAM D. HOROWITZ 
1. 
My name is Adam D. Horowitz. I am an attorney for Jane Doe No. 4. 
2. 
The deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 was scheduled for September 16, 2009 at 1:00 
p.m. at 350 Australian Ave. South, Suite 115, West Palm Beach, Florida. On the day before the 
deposition, the undersigned and counsel for Jeffrey Epstein entered into a written stipulation in 
which it was agreed that "Jeffrey Epstein will not attend tomorrow's deposition of Jane Doe No. 
4 (in the absence of a court order permitting him to attend)." It was further agreed that Jeffrey 
Epstein may listen in to the deposition by telephone or view a videofeed of the deposition, but 
under no circumstances would he "be seen by our client." 
3. 
While Jane Doe No. 4 and I were in the lobby of 350 Australian Ave South at 
approximately 1:00 p.m. for her deposition on September 16, 2009, we crossed paths with 
Jeffrey Epstein and someone who appeared to be his bodyguard. Jeffrey Epstein stopped 
EXHIBIT 
I A 
EFTA00182032

walking and began to stare at and intimidate Janc Doe No. 4. Jane Doe No. 4 was terrified, 
began crying and ran outside the building. Jeffrey Epstein smirked at her and walked away. 
4. 
As a result of this incident, Jane Doe began crying uncontrollably and was unable 
to proceed with her deposition. 
Under penalties of perjury I declare that I have read the foregoing Declaration and the 
facts stated in it are true. 
Dated: September  /7  2009 
2 
r:e 
—1141 
Adam D. Horowitz 
EFTA00182033

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 305 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 
Page 1 of 8 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
PWntift 
v. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
Related Cases: 
08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 
09-80581, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. 
DEFENDANT'S. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND 
TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO. 4 AND MEMORANDUM IN 
SUPPORT THEREOF 
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, moves this 
court for an order granting sanctions pursuant to Rule 30(d)(2) and (3XA) and (C) (referencing 
Rule 37(aX5)), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and compelling the deposition of Jane Doe No. 
4 within fifteen (15) days and as grounds therefore would state: 
1. 
On August 16, 2009, the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 was noticed for September 
16, 2009 to begin at 1:00 p.m. Plaintiff's counsel had advised that Jane Doe No. 4 could not 
appear for a deposition prior to that time of day, i.e. 1:00 p.m. 
2. 
The deposition was originally set at the offices of the undersigned, but Plaintiffs 
counsel requested that it be moved to the court reporter's office. The court reporter is Prose 
Court Reporting located at 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 115, West Palm Beach, FL 
33401. 
EFTA00182034

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 305 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 
Page 2 of 8 
3. 
The undersigned's office began attempting to set the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 
on July 21, 2009. Because of the number of attorneys who would be attending (based on the 
court's consolidation order) coordinating the video deposition creates logistical problems. 
4. 
On August 27, 2009, the undersigned wrote a letter to counsel for the Plaintiff 
indicating that Mr. Epstein would be present at the deposition. A copy of that letter is attached 
as Exhibit 1. 
5. 
Some 13 days later, counsel for Jane Doe No. 4 filed a motion for protective order 
on September 9, 2009 attempting to prohibit Mr.Epstein's presence at the deposition. The 
Defendant immediately filed a response (an Emergency Motion) on September 11, 2009 
requesting that the court enter an order allowing Epstein, the Defendant in this matter, to attend 
the deposition. This is common procedure. See Exhibit 2, without exhibits. As of the date of 
the deposition, the court had not ruled on these motions. 
6. 
On Monday, counsel for Jane Doe No. 4 and the undersigned spoke, an agreement 
was reached that the deposition would proceed as scheduled, and that Mr. Epstein would not be 
in attendance other than by telephone or other means. See Exhibit 3. 
7. 
The deposition was originally scheduled on the 15th Floor and moved by Prose to 
a larger ground floor to accommodate the number of people who were to attend 
8. 
The undersigned and his partner, Mark T. Luttier, had scheduled a meeting with 
Mr. Epstein for approximately an hour prior to the deposition. It is well known through multiple 
newspaper articles that Mr. Epstein's office at the Florida Science Foundation is located on the 
14th Floor in the same building as the court reporter and Mr. Epstein's criminal attorney, Mr. 
Goldberger. As well, had the court issued an order prior to the deposition that would have 
allowed Mr. Epstein to attend, he was readily available. 
2 
EFTA00182035

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 305 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 
Page 3 of 8 
9. 
As of 1:00 p.m., no order had been received from the court, so Epstein's 
attorneys, in good faith, decided that Epstein would not attend the deposition (as per the 
agreement), if we chose to proceed, which we were doing. The undersigned and Mr. Luther 
specifically waited until just after 1:00 o'clock, the time that the deposition was to start, prior to 
leaving with Mr. Epstein. Counsel instructed Mr. Epstein to leave the building. Clearly, 
Defendant and his counsel simply wish to have meaningful discovery. 
10. 
The undersigned and Mr. Luttia exited the elevator heading toward the 
deposition room and Mr. Epstein and his driver, Igor Zinoviev exited in separate elevator at the 
same time and turned to depart from through the front entrance such that he could go to his home 
to watch the deposition and assist counsel, from a video feed. 
11. 
Completely unbeknownst and unexpected by anyone, apparently the Plaintiff and 
her attomey(s) were at the front door where Mr. Epstein was intending to exit. Upon seeing two 
women, one who might be the Plaintiff, Mr. Epstein immediately made a left turn and exited 
through a separate set of doors to the garage area. See affidavit of Jeffrey Epstein and Igor 
Zinoviev, Exhibit 4 and 5, respectively. 
12. 
The entire incident was completely unknown to the undersigned and Mr. Luther 
until Adam Horowitz, Esq. came in and announced that the deposition was not going to take 
place in that Mr. Epstein and his client saw one another, she was upset and therefore the 
deposition was cancelled from his perspective. 
13. 
The undersigned and his partner, Mr. Luther, had a court reporter and a 
videographe• present. Additionally, Mr. Hill on behalf of C.M..A., Adam Langino on behalf of 
B.B., William Berger on behalf of three Plaintiffs were present for the deposition. 
3 
EFTA00182036

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 305 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 
Page 4 of 8 
14. 
Any suggestion that the chance "visual" between Mr. Epstein and Jane Doe No. 4 
was "pre-planned" would be absurd, disingenuous and false. The undersigned counsel went out 
of his way to make certain Mr. Epstein would not be in the building after the time the deposition 
was set to begin. Had the Plaintiff and her counsel been in the deposition room at the appointed 
time, no visual contact would have occurred. 
15. 
It is possible that Plaintiff's counsel, by filing their motion for protective order on 
September 9, 2009 and then advising the undersigned on September 14, 2009 that the deposition 
would not go forward unless the undersigned agreed to exclude Mr. Epstein from the deposition, 
were not prepared and/or did not want to proceed with the deposition. 
16. 
The unilateral termination of the deposition was unnecessary, inappropriate and a 
substantial waste of attorney time and the costs related to the deposition (court reporter and 
videographer). (See Affidavit of Robert D. Critton, Jr., Mark T. Luttler and Deposition 
Transcript, Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 respectively). 
17. 
Had the "visual" been premeditated, the cancellation of the deposition may have 
been justified, however, under these circumstances, it was grandstanding and improper. In that 
the Plaintiff has stated that she voluntary went to JE's home 50 plus times without trauma until 
she filed a lawsuit, this brief visual encounter from a distance should not have resulted in the 
unilateral cancellation of her deposition. 
18. 
The costs associated with the court reporter and videographer total $428.80. See 
Exhibit 9. 
Memorandum of Law In support of Motion 
A substantial amount of administrative time went into the setting up the deposition of 
Jane Doe No. 4. Almost two months passed from the time that the Defendant's counsel first 
4 
EFTA00182037

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 305 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 
Page 5 of 8 
requested a date for the deposition of lane Doe No. 4. The deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 was to 
begin at 1:00 p.m, based on her schedule, and was moved from the undersigned's office to the 
office of the court reporter at her counsel's request. 
Pursuant to Rule 30(dX2) and (3)(A) and (C) and its reference to 37(aX5)), Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure, the court may impose an appropriate sanction, including reasonable expenses 
in attorneys fees incurred by any party on a person who impedes or delays the fair examination 
of the deponent. In this instance, the brief visual encounter, which was completely unintended 
and inadvertent, should not have been grounds for Plaintiff's counsel and Plaintiff refusing to 
move forward with the deposition. Furthermore, pursuant to (3)(A) and (C), Plaintiff and 
Plaintiff's counsel had no right to unilaterally terminate cancel the deposition and fail to move 
forward. Plaintiff should have continued with the deposition and filed any motion deemed 
appropriate post deposition. Therefore, Defendant is asking for the costs associated with the 
attendance of the court reporter, her transcript and the presence of the videographer. Defendant 
would also request reasonable fees for 2.5 hours at $500 per hour for being required to prepare 
this motion and affidavits associated with same. 
The records obtained thus far on Jane Doe No. 4, do not reflect any "emotional trauma" 
by her own account of some 50 plus visits to the Defendant's home prior to the time that she 
hired an attorney. Even in her interview with attorney's handpicked expert, Dr. ICliman, by her 
own comments, her significant emotional trauma relates to physical and verbal abuse by a prior 
boyfriend, 
and deaths associated with two close friends, 
Therefore, the supposed "emotional trauma" caused by a chance encounter resulting in a 
"glance" at best, should not be the basis for Plaintiff unilaterally cancelling her deposition. 
5 
EFTA00182038

Case 9:08-cv-80119-I<AM 
Document 305 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 
Page 6 of 8 
Rule 7.1 A. 3. Certification of Pre-Filing Conference 
Counsel for Defendant conferred with Counsel for Plaintiff by telephone and by e-mail; 
however, an agreement has not been reached. 
WHEREFORE, Defendant moves this court for an order granting sanctions to include 
attorneys fees and costs as set forth above and costs associated with the attendance of the court 
reporter, the transcript and the presence of the videographer and direction that Jane Doe No. 4 
appear for deposition within fifteen (15) days from the date of the court's order at the court 
reporter's office. If the court has not issued an order regarding Mr. Epstein's attendance at 
Plaintiff's deposition when Jane Doe No. 4 is to appear, the Defendant will agree that Mr. 
Epstein will not be present in the building on the date of her scheduled deposition such that no 
"inadvertent" contact will occur. 
Robert fib. Critton, Jr. 
Mic 
1J. Pike 
Attorneys for Defendant Epstein 
Certificate of Service 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was hand-delivered to the Clerk 
of the Court as required by the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida and electronically 
mailed to all counsel of record identified on the following Service List on this  f d 
day of 
September 2009. 
Certificate of Service 
Jane Doe No. 2 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Case No. 08-CV-130119-MARRA/JOHNSON 
6 
EFTA00182039

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 305 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 
Page 7 of 8 
Stuart S. Mennelstein, Esq. 
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. 
Merrnelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 
18205 Biscayne Boulevard 
Suite 2218 
Miami, FL 33160 
Counsel or Paint: 
In related Cases Nos. 0840069, 08-80119, 08-
80232, 08-80380, 0840381, 0840993, 08-
80994 
Richard Horace Willits, Esq. 
Richard H. Willits, P.A. 
2290 10th Avenue North 
Suite 404 
Lake Worth. FL 33461 
Fax: 
Counse for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-
80811 
Jack Scarola, Esq. 
Jack P. Hill, Esq. 
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 
P.A. 
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard 
West Palm Beach, FL 33409 
C.M.A. 
Bruce Reinhart, Esq. 
Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 
250 S. Australian Avenue 
Suite 1400 
7 
Brad Edwards, Esq. 
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 
401 East Las Olas Boulevard 
Suite 1650 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 
Phone: 
Fax: 
in Related Case No. 08-
80893 
Paul G. Ciggell, Esq. 
Pro Hac Vice 
332 South 1400 E, Room 101 
Salt Lake City, UT 84112 
Fax 
cou 
or atnt: Jane Doe 
Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. 
Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 
224 Datura Street, Suite 900 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
unse 
80469 
n elated Case No. 08-
Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. 
Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. 
Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 
25 West Hagler Street, Suite 800 
Miami, FL 33130 
ounse or 
atnt: s in Related Cases 
09-80591 and 0940656 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
Nos. 
EFTA00182040

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 305 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 
Page 8 of 8 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Counsel for Defendant 
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. 
Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. 
Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. 
2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 
Fax: 
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-
08804 
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
Respectfully submi 
By: 
ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. 
Florida Bar o. 224162 
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. 
Florida Bar #617296 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 
303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Phone 
Fax 
(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 
8 
EFTA00182041

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 305-2 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 
Page 1 of 1 
J. MICHAEL EIMMAR PA" 
GREGORY W. COLEMAN. PA. 
(LOMAT D. DUTTON. DL. PA' 
EMMA LESEDEKEE. 
/Ant T. twilit PA 
JEFFREY C PEPIN 
MICHAEL L PIIR 
RUSHEE MCHAMAKA 'USDA 
DAVID PM/MA 
IMAM IOKED Mono) emL TUAL Loma 
kmumo TO HACK= m Daum MID CCEDPA0O 
Sent by E.Mall and U.S, Mail 
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 
PA.
Suite 2218 
Miami, FL 33160 
BURMAN. CRITTON 
LUTTIER&COLEMAN.LLP 
YOUR. TRUSTED ADVOCATES 
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 
August 27, 2009 
Re: 
Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein 
Dear Stuart 
ADE/OWE BEPUNItin 
mmUGAVINverrESAT0K 
JESSICA CAMELS 
EOM EL MCKINNA 
ASHUE STOKEWISMUH0 
BETTY STOKES 
MEALI0ALS 
FUTA H. BUDNYK 
OF COMM 
ED PlCCS 
ra cal.Va
er 
Please be advised that Mr. Epstein plans to be in attendance at the deposition of 
your client. He does not Intend to engage in any conversation with your client. However. it 
is certainly his right as a party-defendant in the lawsuit to be present and to assist counsel 
in the defense of any case. 
RDC/clz 
cc: 
Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. 
EXHIBIT / 
• Surn 400 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 • Nome: 
• FAx: 
WWW.BCLCLAW.COM 
EFTA00182042

—Case4:08-cv-6 
mererr on PtStruocket 09/17/2009 
Page 1 of 11 
. 
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 296 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 
Page 1 of 33 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICF OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-S0119-1V1ARRA-JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
I 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
Related Cases: 
0840232, 0840380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 0940469, 
0940581, 0940656, 0940802, 0941092. 
Defendant Epstein's Emergency Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Motion For 
Protective Order (DE 292) And Emergency Motion To Allow The 
Attendance Of Jeffrey Epstein At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs And Response 
In Opposition To Plaintiffs', Jane Doe Nos. 24, Motion For Protective Order 
As To Jeffrey Epstein's Attendance At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs, With 
Incorporated Memorandum of Law 
Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, by and through his undersigned counsel, and pursuant to all 
applicable rules, including Local Rule 7.1(e) and Local Rule 12, hereby files and saves his 
Emergency Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Motion For Protective Order (DE 292) And Emergency 
Motion To Allow The Attendance Of Jeffrey Epstein At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs AS 
Response In Opposition To Plaintiffs', Jane Doe Nos. 2-8, Motion For Protective Order As To 
Jeffrey Epstein's Attendance At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs. In support, Epstein states: 
introduction and Backarouncl 
1. 
On August 19, 2009, Defendant sent a Notice for Taking the Deposition of Jane 
Doe No. 4 for September 16, 2009. 
Exhibit "1" 
EXHIBIT 2. 
EFTA00182043

Case 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM 
Document 305-3 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 
Page 2 of 11 
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 296 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 
Page 2 of 33 
Page 2 
2. 
Additionally, notices were sent out in other cases in connection with deposing 
additional Plaintiffs. 
3. 
No objection(s) was/were received for Jane Doe No. 4, which was the only 
deposition set relative to the Jane Doe 2-8 Plaintiffs. 
4. 
On August 27, 2009, the undersigned counsel sent a letter to counsel for Jane Doe 
No. 4 concerning her deposition and the scheduling of same on the above date. See Exhibit "2". 
5. 
No response was received until counsel for Jane Doe No. 4 called on September 
8, 2009, approximately eight days prior to the scheduled deposition, to indicate that they now 
had an objection and would be filing a motion for protective order seeking to prevent Epstein 
from attending the deposition. Once again, Plaintiffs are attempting to stifle this litigation 
through their own delay tactics during discovery. Plaintiffs wish not only to attempt to force 
Epstein to trial without any meaningful discovery, but now wish to ban Epstein from any 
depositions, thereby preventing him from assisting his attorneys in his very own defense. What's 
next — will Plaintiffs seek to prevent Epstein from attending any of the trials that result from the 
lawsuits Jane Does 2-8 have initiated? Plaintiffs see millions of dollars in damages, both 
compensatory and punitive, against Defendant. 
6. 
Defendant is filing this emergency motion and his immediate response to the 
motion for protective order to guarantee his right to be present and assist counsel in deposing not 
only Jane Doe No. 4, but other plaintiffs and witnesses in these cases. To hold otherwise would 
violate Epstein's due process rights to defend the very allegations Plaintiffs have alleged against 
him. Dues a Defendant not have a right to be present at depositions or other court proceedings to 
assist counsel with the defense of his case? Does a Defendant, no matter what the charges or the 
allegations, have full and unbridled access to the court system and the proceedings it governs, 
EFTA00182044

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 305-3 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 
Page 3 of 11 
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 296 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 
Page 3 of 33 
Page 3 
including discovery? The short answer is unequivocally, yes. To hold otherwise would be a 
direct violation of Epstein's constitutional due process rights. Plaintiffs' attempts to play fast 
and loose with the law should not be tolerated. 
7. 
As the court is aware, plaintiffs and defendants routinely attend depositions of 
pat and other witnesses in both State and Federal court proceedings. In fact, parties have a 
right under the law to attend such depositions 
8. 
As the court will note from Exhibit 2, counsel for the Defendant specifically 
stated that "Please be advised that Mr. Epstein plans to be in attendance at the deposition of your 
client He does not intend to engage in any conversation with your client. However, it is 
certainly his right as a party-defendant in the lawsuit to be present and to assist counsel in the 
defense of any case." Despite this right, Plaintiffs continue to attempt to control how discovery 
is conducted in this case and how this court has historically governed discovery. 
9. 
Interestingly, in Jane Doe II, the state court case, attorney Sid Garcia took the 
deposition of the Defendant and his client, Jane Doe II, was present throughout the deposition. 
This is despite her claims of "emotional trauma" set forth in her complaint. Jane Doe No. II is 
also a Plaintiff in the federal court proceeding Jane Doe 11 v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-CIV-
80469). Is this court going to start a precedent where it allows Plaintiffs to attend the depositions 
of Jeffrey Epstein, but not allow Epstein to attend their depositions (i.e., the very Plaintiffs that 
have asserted claims against him for millions of dollars)? This court should not condone such a 
practice. 
10. 
The undersigned is well aware of the court's No-Contact Order entered on July 
31, 2009 (DE 238). A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit "3". In fact, the order provides 
that the defendant have no direct or indirect contact with the plaintiffs, nor communications with 
EFTA00182045

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 305-3 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 
Page 4 of 11 
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 296 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 
Page 4 of 33 
Page 4 
the plaintiffs either directly or indirectly. However, there is no prohibition against Mr. Epstein's 
attendance at a deposition where, as is reflected in the order, the communication will be made to 
the plaintiff solely through defense counsel with one or more of plaintiffs' counsel of record 
present in the room in a videotaped deposition- 
Obviously, any inappropriate contact or 
communication will certainly be flagged by the attorneys in attendance. As such, Plaintiffs 
really have the cart before the horse in this instance (i.e., nothing prevents Epstein from attending 
these depositions and, to the extent Plaintiffs believe that something improper occurs at any 
deposition, only then can that circumstance be addressed by a motion such as the instant one.) 
11. 
Next, Plaintiffs, Jane Does 2-8, attempt to use the Affidavit of Dr. Kliman for 
every motion for protective order/objection filed to date. This also includes the two most recent 
motions, which attempt to prevent Defendant's investigators from doing their job, such that the 
Defendant and his attorneys can defend the claims asserted in these cases. Plaintiffs lose sight of 
the fact that the court, in discussing the Non-Prosecution Agreement, inquired as to whether 
Epstein and his counsel could fully defend the case, which included discovery and investigation. 
All plaintiffs' counsel and the USAO responded in the affirmative. In fact, Plaintiffs universally 
agreed at the June 12, 2009 hearing on Defendant's Motion to Stay that regular discovery could 
proceed. See Composite Exhibit "4" at pages 26-30 & 33-34. For instance, the court asked 
Plaintiffs' attorneys the following questions: 
The Court: [) So again, I just want to make sure that if the cases go forward and 
if Mr. Epstein defends the case as someone ordinarily would defend a case being 
prosecuted against him or her, that that in and of itself is not going to cause him to 
be subject to criminal prosecution? (Ex. "A," p.26). 
1** 
The Court: You agree he should be able to take the ordinary steps that a 
defendant in a civil action can take and not be concerned about having to be 
prosecuted? (Ex. "A," p.27). 
EFTA00182046