EFTA00317211

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 21 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 21 
personal matters and the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions. 
Favalora v. Sideway, 966 So.2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). 
Accordingly, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, and under applicable law, 
Defendant's assertion of the protections afforded under the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the 
United States Constitution are required to be upheld. In addition, this Court must address the 
privacy rights of others as outlined above. 
c. Jane Doe - Request Numbers 12 and 13 
Request No. 12: 
Personal tax returns for all years from 2002 through the 
present. 
Request No. 13: 
A photocopy of your passport, including any supplemental 
pages reflecting travel to locations outside the 50 United States between 2002 and 
2008, including any documents or records regarding plane tickets, hotel receipts, 
or transportation arrangements. 
Response to Request Numbers : Defendant is asserting specific legal objections 
to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to 
produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys 
have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and 
produce documents relevant to this lawsuit without waiving my Fifth Amendment 
constitutional rights and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth 
Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal 
constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as 
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference 
under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my 
constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the 
Constitution; overly broad. 
As set forth in more detail in DE 282 and 283, which were provided to the court in 
camera and which the court considered in other Rule 4 Appeals, Epstein cannot provide 
answers/responses to questions relating to his financial history and condition without waiving his 
Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Asking for Epstein's personal tax returns is financial 
in nature and it is confidential, proprietary and seeks information much of which is neither 
relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated 
EFTA00317231

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 22 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 22 
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Importantly, the Magistrate did not make a 
ruling on relevancy as to the personal tax returns, and the Plaintiff has not met the burden of 
establishing a "compelling need" for the tax returns. 
Producing the specified information, in full, would result in testimonial disclosures that 
would communicate statements of fact and would require Epstein to produce the returns and 
thereby "stipulate" to their genuiness, their existence, his control of the records, and their 
authenticity as his executed tax returns even though his possession of such records are by no 
means a foregone conclusion. Again, the information sought relates to potential federal claims 
violations. 
ee DE 282 and 283, in camera, which the court permitted sua sponte. Production 
would therefore constitute a testimonial admission of the genuineness, the existence, and 
Epstein's control of such records, and thus presents a real and substantial danger of self-
incrimination in this case, in other related cases and as well in areas that could result in criminal 
prosecution. aes generally $offinan v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 
530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbauro, 445 U.S. at 128. 
The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the 
proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's personal tax returns must be produced because 
they are allegedly a mandatory part of a civil regulatory scheme and have assumed some public 
aspect. (DE 462, p.12) However, "required records" are ordinarily records collected by highly 
regulated business (e.g., physicians) wherein the records themselves have assumed public aspects 
which render them analogous to public documents. ,ate In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641-
643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). Usually, these documents are known to more than the filer and the agency 
in which the document(s) were filed (i.e., known to other persons of the general public). Id. 
Even though the IRS may have certain returns, they remain confidential under 26 U.S.C. §6103 
EFTA00317232

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 23 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 23 
from any disclosures and are therefore different than a regulated/public record that can be 
accessed by the public. In Trudeau v. New York State Consumer Protection Bd., 237 F.R.D. 325 
(N.D.N.Y. 2006), the court maintained that "[r]outine discovery of tax returns is not the rule but 
rather the exception." Id. at 331. The Court went on to note that [for nearly the past thirty-five 
years, tax returns have been considered `confidential,' pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6103." Id. Because 
of the principle of confidentiality, it further noted, "courts in the Second Circuit have found 
personal financial information to be presumptively confidential or cloaked with a qualified 
immunity," and must, therefore, "balance the countervailing policies of liberal discovery set 
forth in the Federal Rules of Civil procedure against maintaining the confidentiality of such 
documents." Id. 
To achieve that balance, courts in the Second Circuit have developed a "more stringent" 
standard than that set forth in the rules. To order disclosure of tax returns, a court must find that 
"the requested tax information is relevant to the subject matter of the action" and that "there is a 
compelling need for this information because the information contained therein is not otherwise 
readily available." 14. The Magistrate's Order makes no such finding in the instant matter. In 
fact, the burden of showing compelling need is on the party seeking discovery, but once a 
compelling need has been found, the party whose tax return information has been requested has 
the burden to "provide alternative sources for this sensitive information. Id. If the requested 
information is available from alternate sources, disclosure should not be compelled. Potential 
alternate sources to which the court pointed were gathering the information through deposition or 
disclosure in an affidavit by the requested party of net worth, wealth, and income. Id. at 331-32. 
See Barton v. Cascade Regional Blood Services, 2007 WL 2288035 (W.D.Wash. 2007)("Tax 
returns are confidential communications between the taxpayer and the government [citing 
EFTA00317233

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 24 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 24 
§61031 and although not privileged from discovery there is a recognized policy against 
unnecessary public disclosure 
The Court finds no compelling need which overcomes this 
recognized policy"). Courts have broadly construed these provisions to embody a general 
federal policy against indiscriminate disclosure of tax returns from any source. Federal Say. & 
Loan Ins. Coro. v. Krueger, 55 F.R.D. 514-15 (N.D. III. 1972X"it is the opinion of this court that 
(§6103] reflect[s] a valid public policy against disclosure of income tax returns. This policy is 
grounded in the interest of the government in full disclosure of all the taxpayer's income which 
thereby maximizes revenue. To indiscriminately compel a taxpayer to disclose this information 
merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); wee aQ 
Premium Service Com. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975)(would 
have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" 
of the "public policy against unnecessary disclosure [of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax 
laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). 
In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at •2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the 
court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and that courts should be 
reluctant to order disclosure during discovery. Citing, Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. 
Energy Gathering. Inc., 2 F.3d 1397, 1411 (5th Cir. 1993); DeMasi v. Weiss. Inc., 669 F.2d 114, 
119-20 (3d Cir. 1982Xnoting existence of public policy against disclosure of tax returns); 
Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975). The court 
in Pendlebury agreed that parties seeking the production of tax returns must demonstrate (1) 
relevance of the tax returns to the subject matter of the dispute and (2) a compelling need for the 
tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available. W. at *2; 
see also Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Marv's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001); 
EFTA00317234

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 25 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 25 
Cooper v. Hallgarten & Co., 34 F.R.D. 482, 483-84 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). Thus, before the Court can 
order production of the requested returns in this matter, the Plaintiff must satisfy the "relevance" 
and "compelling need" standards. The Magistrate's Order fails to address the "relevancy" 
standard and Plaintiff fails to provide same with supporting argument and case law, and the 
Plaintiff fails to delineate any "compelling need" or availability of net worth from other sources 
(e.g., a stipulation as to net worth, which is certainly an alternative means). To the extent that 
the Court determines that the tax returns are relevant and that there is a compelling need for at 
least their disclosure of Epstein's wealth for punitive damage purposes, Epstein through his 
attorneys, as per the discussion at the status conference on May 7, 2010, agreed to a confidential 
stipulation that his net worth is in excess of nine figures. Such a stipulation more than satisfies 
any necessity for the disclosure of the tax returns or any additional net worth information. See 
e.g., Mvers v. Central Florida Investments, Inc., 592 F.3d 1201 (1 l" Cir. 2010)(reasoning that a 
compensatory award of $103,622.09 and a punitive damage award of $506,847.78 for 5 years of 
sexual harassment and sexual touching was reasonable). Unfortunately, the parties were unable 
to reach a agreement. 
Myers clearly demonstrates that Epstein's offer to agree to a net worth in excess of 
$50,000,00 is reasonable in light of the allegations made by Jane Doe as compared to the 
allegations in Myers. Moreover, allowing such discovery at this juncture goes against the grain 
and the law in that Plaintiff has not made a reasonable showing establishing that she will recover 
on her claims or that if she did such a compensatory damage recovery could possible implicate 
punitive damages in excess of Epstein's offer to stipulate.. Ward v. Estalciro Itajai S/A. 541 
F.Supp.2d 1344. 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2008)(The court cannot apply Rule 26 and allow Plaintiff to 
obtain discovery she seeks without any prior showing of a reasonable basis for recovery). See 
EFTA00317235

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 26 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 26 
also Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and Fla. Stat. 768.72; Gallina v. Commerce And Industry, Ins., 2008 
WL 3895918 (S.D. Ha. 2009)(unless liability for punitive damages is established at trial, the 
discovery sought is not relevant). 
In Gallina, the court held that in light of the proprietary of the financial worth information 
sought, and the statutory protections against discovery of such information, it was recommended 
that the court defer financial discovery until it is deemed necessary and that production of such 
financial information not occur until the ". . . final pretrial conference. . . or when it becomes 
apparent that punitive damages can be awarded." Id. at *5. Since bifurcation is required in the 
instant matter, W.R. Grace & Company v. Waters, 638 So.2d 502 (Fla. 1994), it is reasonable 
and consistent with the applicable law, that any tax returns not be produced until such time as it 
becomes apparent at the first stage of the trial that punitive damages will be an issue. 
To the extent this court orders production of tax returns and to the extent Epstein's 
personal tax returns contain such information, same should be redacted and subject to heightened 
confidentiality order pursuant to the court's previous orders. However, this can only be done 
subsequent to an in camera hearing wherein this court can make a ruling on relevancy, 
production, redaction and confidentiality; but only after the Plaintiff shows a compelling need. 
In addition, for the reasons outlined herein including, but not limited to, the discovery abuses and 
bad faith litigation tactics that Epstein has been the subject of at the hands of Scott Rothstein and 
his-co-conspirators, any tax returns must be redacted to preserve confidently and to prevent 
further abuses. See supra. 
Further, Epstein's complicated business transactions have no relevancy to this lawsuit 
and, therefore, evidence of same should not be produced. The Fifth Amendment is a safe harbor 
for all citizens, including those who are innocent of any underlying offense. This request, if 
EFTA00317236

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 27 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 27 
answered, may result in compelled production and/or testimonial communications from Epstein 
regarding his financial status and history and would require him to waive his right to decline to 
respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter. 
Responding to this and other 
related inquiries would have the potential to provide a link in a chain of information and/or leads 
to other evidence or witnesses that would have the specific risk of furthering an investigation 
against him and therefore are protected from compulsion by Epstein's constitutional privilege. 
Accordingly, any compelled testimony that provides a "lead or clue to a source of 
evidence of such [a] crime" is protected by Fifth Amendment. SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d at 
494. Questions seeking "testimony" regarding names of witnesses, leads to phone or travel 
records, or financial records that would provide leads to tax or money laundering or unlicensed 
money transmittal investigations are protected. age ALI2 Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. 479, 
486 (1951)("the right against self-incrimination may be invoked if the answer would furnish a 
link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute for a crime"). 
Based upon the above admissions, it is clear that Plaintiff now seeks information that 
may provide a link in the chain of evidence used to prosecute Epstein including, but not limited 
to the significant fact that target letters and subpoenas were issued relating to certain financial 
offenses. Sse Lg., DEs 282 and 283 submitted in camera and U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 
(1989Xdisclosing materials to the district court does not have the legal effect of terminating a 
privilege thereby allowing parties to disclose documents in camera and make that in camera 
request — which request is made in the instant Rule 4 Appeal for which Defendant is awaiting the 
court's response). As a result, DEs 282 and 283 (in camera) and other related Orders must be 
analyzed to reach the correct legal conclusion. The court must be cognizant of the allegations in 
EFTA00317237

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 28 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 28 
the related cases regarding sexual misconduct with and abuse, exploitation, and sexual battery of 
alleged minors. For example: 
In this and the other civil actions, the Plaintiffs reference federal and state 
criminal statutes in an attempt to allege claims ranging from sexual battery to 
intentional infliction of emotional distress, to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422, 
Chapter 117 — "Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes," to 
a cause of action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 — which creates a civil remedy for 
personal injuries where a plaintiff can show a violation of specified criminal 
statutes. Most importantly, the lynchpin for the exercise of federal criminal 
jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 2422(6) is the use of "any facility or means of 
interstate or foreign commerce". Thus, facially, an essential condition of any 
allegation of this statutory offense is the use of a facility of interstate commerce 
during which use there was persuasion, inducement, enticing, or coercing of an 
underage person to engage in prostitution or sexual activity. As more fully 
discussed, infra, contested request numbers 12 asks that Epstein to make a 
testimonial disclosure of information regarding the availability to him of such 
interstate facilities (e.g., the tax returns could list scuds such as planes) and thus 
would constitute a link in the chain of evidence that could potentially expose him 
to the hazards of self-incrimination as to 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) violations. Likewise, 
other Jane Does have contended that they are entitled to 18 U.S.C. 2255 damages 
based on Epstein's violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) a separate federal criminal 
statute that prohibits "a person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into 
the United States...for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual activity". As more 
fully discussed, infra, contested request number 13, by seeking testimonial 
disclosures regarding Epstein's passport and dates Epstein traveled to and from 
the State of Florida, would constitute a link in the chain of evidence that could 
potentially expose him to the hazards of self-incrimination as to 18 U.S.C. 
2423(b) violations. 
Both 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) and 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) were amongst the target offenses 
of a joint FBI-United States Attorney investigation further demonstrating the 
extent to which Epstein's refusal to respond to each request is, as required, based 
on a specific apprehension of a compelled disclosure providing a link in the chain 
of evidence adverse to him as required by Hoffman v United States, 341 US 479, 
486 (1951). Epstein, in fact, can deny the occurrence of the nesindta alleged and 
still maintain the safe harbor of the 5'" Amendment2 ate Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 
17 (1991). 
2 See PeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4d. DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan. 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 
(1964Xthe 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. 34 §128O 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 flaJur.2d 
Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. —"... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not 
EFTA00317238

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 29 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 29 
Plaintiffs also allege that Epstein had a plan and scheme (which) reflected a 
particular pattern and method" in the alleged recruiting of girl's to come to 
Epstein's Palm Beach mansion and give him "massages" in exchange for money. 
Plaintiffs also allege that Epstein "sexually assaulted" them, and that Epstein 
"maintains his principal home in New York and also owns residences in New 
Mexico, St. Thomas and Palm Beach, FL." 
They further allege "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." The nature of the allegations are serious, and state clearly that the 
alleged assaults occurred in Florida, New York and in St. Thomas. See e.g., 
Second Amended Complaints of Jane Does 2-8. and DE 485, p.18. 
As this Court knows, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") 
with United States Attorney's Office for the Federal Southern District of Florida. 
The terms and conditions of the NPA also entailed Epstein entering into a Plea 
Agreement with the State Attorney's Office, Palm Beach County, State of Florida. 
By its terms, the NPA took effect on June 30, 2008. As well, pursuant to the 
NPA, any criminal prosecution against Epstein is deferred as long as the terms 
and conditions of the NPA are fulfilled by Epstein. The federal grand jury 
investigation against Epstein is held in abeyance i.e. it is not concluded with 
finality until the NPA expires by its terms in late 2010 and as long as the USAO 
determines that Epstein has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat 
of criminal prosecution against Epstein by the USAO continues presently and 
through late 2010. The USAO possesses the right to declare that the agreement 
has been breached, give Epstein's counsel notice, and attempt to move forward 
with the prosecution. Moreover, the NPA does not provide Epstein with any 
protection from criminal investigation or prosecution in any federal district other 
than the Southern District of Florida. The Second Amended Complaints and 
Plaintiff Response at DE 485, p.18 include averments that Epstein both resided in 
and engaged in illegal sexual conduct in districts outside the Southern District of 
Florida. In other words, the fact that there exists a NPA does not mean that 
Epstein is free from future criminal prosecution, which the Magistrate Judge's 
Order also acknowledged. WE 242, p.4) In fact, the Order acknowledged that 
"[t]he danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this case is substantial and 
real, and not merely trifling or imaginary as required." (DE 242, p. 10). For the 
reasons set forth in Epstein's Rule 4 Appeal and herein, that same ruling should 
be reached relative to Request Numbers 12 and 13 given the close nexus between 
the information requested and the pivotal jurisdictional requisites of 18 U.S.C. 
2423(b)(the requirement of interstate travel i.e. travel from one of Epstein's out of 
state residences to Florida or from Florida to one of such residences. 
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. 
EFTA00317239

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 30 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 30 
Accordingly, it is clear that Plaintiff and her counsel seek this information not to further 
their civil case, but to gain information to aid in the future prosecution of Epstein in direct 
violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. In fact, the Mermelstein and Horowitz firm was quoted 
in the Palm Beach Post stating, among other things, that the book sold to undercover agents 
could open the door to future prosecution of Epstein. As such, Plaintiffs' counsels' intention is 
clear — to use the civil discovery process to attempt to further prosecute Epstein. 
See 
hrto://iessicaarbour.bloresoot.con/2010/03/horowitz-discusses-nossibility-othtml. 
Moreover, 
Mr. Edwards himself admitted at his own deposition to repeated disclosures to a variety of media 
outlets including, but not limited to, the NY Post and Vanity Fair. Accordingly, Epstein's 5th
Amendment rights in this regard should be sustained. 
Furthermore, as set forth in a Civil Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit ar attorney 
Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees at the firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and 
Adler, P.A., deliberately engaged in a pattern of racketeering that involved a staggering series of 
gravely serious obstructions of justice, actionable frauds, and the orchestration and conducting of 
egregious civil litigation abuses that resulted in profoundly serious injury to Jeffrey Epstein, 
including substantial attorneys' fees and costs. In short, Rothstein and his co-conspirators forged 
Federal court orders and opinions and, among other things, staged a series of depositions that 
were unrelated to any principled litigation purpose but instead designed to discover extraneous 
private information about Epstein or his personal and business associates (including well-known 
public figures) in order to defraud investors and support extortionate demands for payment from 
Epstein. The misconduct featured the filing of legal motions and the pursuit of a civil litigation 
strategy that was unrelated to the merits or value of their clients' cases and, instead, had as its 
improper purpose the furthering of Rothstein's misrepresentations and deceit to third-party 
EFTA00317240

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 31 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV801 19 
Page No. 31 
investors. As a result, Epstein was subject to abusive investigatory tactics, unprincipled media 
attacks, and unsupportable legal filings and discovery abuses. Since Plaintiff's counsel is 
formerly of RRA and due to the fact that certain information may contain the names of third-
parties, that information (should this court order production of same after an in camera 
inspection) must be redacted to secure the names of unsuspecting third-parties. Moreover, 
Michael Fisten (formerly an employee of RRA and now an employee/independent contractor of 
Mr. Edwards' firm) acted, upon information and belief, as a broker or middleman who staged 
regular meetings during which false statements were made about the number of cases/clients that 
existed or RRA had against Epstein. For this reason alone, such information should be redacted 
in order to protect those unsuspecting third parties. 
(i) Request Number 13 
As to Request Number 13, Defendant provided this court with sufficient argument at DE 
282 and DE 283 detailing why the production of information showing Epstein's whereabouts 
could provide a link in the chain of evidence regarding: (a) Epstein's air travel within the United 
States and Foreign Territories; (b) Epstein's communications with others relating to or referring 
to females coming into the United States from other countries; and (c) Epstein's personal 
calendars and schedules. Given that the essential proof of an allegation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) 
would include travel records, schedules regarding trips and locations, flight records, calendars, 
and transportation arrangements, the court found that Epstein had made a more particularized 
showing because producing such information "could reveal the availability to him and/or use by 
him of interstate facilities and thus would constitute a link in the chain of evidence that could 
potentially expose [Epstein] to the dangers of self incrimination." (DE 293, p.6) See infra, 
regarding private aircraft. 
EFTA00317241

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 32 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 32 
The Magistrate's Order (DE 462) provides that Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege 
does not extend to his passport because its existence is known to the government or is a 
"foregone conclusion." J4. at p. 11. First, the magistrate's order presupposes that Epstein has all 
his passports from 2002 up through to the current date and that the government has an exact copy 
of same. Second, the Order presupposes that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol ("CPB") keeps a 
record and/or has maintained records of Epstein's travel and whereabouts from 2002 up through 
to the current date. Third, assuming Epstein traveled internationally, the Order presupposes that 
the CPB has records of all of Epstein's destinations and that other countries have shared that 
information with the CBP. In short, the order would require Epstein to produce documents that 
he may or may not have 8 years of passport information thus requiring him to "admit" to the 
genuiness and possession of the documents produced. 
For instance, OP now offers "Global Entry" to enter the United States by kiosk. 
However, it is unclear whether the Global Entry kiosk records and copies the pages of a 
traveler's destinations outside of the United States, or does it simply record exit from and entry 
back into the United States?3 Moreover, it is unclear whether CBP maintains the Sample 
Customs Declaration Form for any period of time, which form sets out (i.e., if filled out) the 
countries visited by a traveler.° This Court cannot Compel Epstein to produce information in 
violation of his Fifth Amendment by simply stating that Epstein's passport is "known to the 
government" or is a "forgone conclusion." In fact, from the websites listed herein, any CBP 
documents or forms filled out by a traveler take on a complete different form when compared to 
an original passport, which is initially issued with blank pages. This Court would be hard-
3 SS
 La., htiD://WWW.CILStOMS.SOWXDICROVitraVCIATUSied traveler/global entry/ 
4 591 g,g., lutu://www.customs.gov/xp/cgovItravelkacationisanyte_declaratioa_form.xmi 
EFTA00317242

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 33 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 33 
pressed to find that the CBP has an exact copy of every page of every traveler's passport. 
Obviously, this would create more document management than CBP anticipates on its website. 
Moreover, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §122.2, pilots of private aircraft are required to 
electronically transmit passenger and crew manifest information for all flights arriving into 
and/or departing out of the United States. As this court knows, Mr. Edwards has conducted 
extensive discovery, has questioned individuals as to whether Epstein owns private aircraft and 
has obtained certain flight manifests. Arguably, if such a procedure were followed in Epstein's 
case pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §122.2, then Epstein's passport would arguably take on a 
substantially different form when compared to the information maintained by the CBP (i.e., 
information that was electronically transferred). Under that circumstance, CBP would not have 
an exact copy of Epstein's passports. Accordingly, the assumptions made in the Magistrate's 
Order have serious Fifth Amendment implications in that the exact information sought is not 
"known to the government" and is not a "forgone conclusion" in that the government is not 
likely to have an exact copy of Epstein's passports. 
Again, Plaintiff's request for Epstein's passport "reflecting travel to locations outside the 
50 United States between 2002 and 2008, is no different from the requests this Court has already 
ruled upon and sustained Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege in response thereto. (DE 292). 
In summary, this court reasoned that: 
"Wn this and the other civil actions, Plaintiff's allege that Epstein violated certain 
federal and state criminal statutes in an attempt to make claims against Epstein 
ranging from sexual battery to intentional infliction of emotional distress. The 
lynchpin for the exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 
§2422(b), which figures in some of the complaints filed, is `the use of any facility 
or means of interstate or foreign commerce' and the analogous essential element 
of 18 U.S.C. §2423(b), which also figures in some of the Complaints, is `travel[s] 
in interstate commerce or travels into the United States or . . . travels in foreign 
commerce.' Accordingly, requiring Epstein to provide responses. . .would in 
essence be compelling him to provide assertions of fact, thereby admitting that 
EFTA00317243

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 34 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 34 
such documents existed and further admitting that the documents in his 
possession or control were authentic. 
As such, if you believe Plaintiff's footnote 4 at (DE 210), responding to this request 
could very well implicate Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege. The allegations of Epstein's use 
of interstate commerce and travel and any compelled production is clearly a violation of 
Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights! Based upon the arguments set forth in DE 283 (which is 
incorporated herein), this Court sustained Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege. That same 
ruling should apply here. (DE 293). If not, this court may be requiring Epstein to produce a log 
of his travels, which this Court already sustained under the Fifth Amendment. 
Plaintiff must also show that the requested information is relevant to the disputed issues of 
the underlying action. See Young Circle Garage, LLC. v. Rowel, 916 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 
2005); 
aja Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Daisy Worldwide. Inc., 
702 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden and, in doing so, has 
also failed to show any substantial need for the documents. 
IV. 
Jane Does 2-8 - Request Number 1 
As to Request number one of Jane Doe 2-8s' request for production, it provides: 
Request No. 1: 
All Federal and State income tax returns, including all W-2 
forms, 1099 forms and schedules, for tax years 2003-2008. 
Accordingly, for the same reasons expressed herein relative to Jane Doe's request for tax 
records, same should be denied. Epstein adopts and reincorporates the arguments set out above 
and the relief requested herein relative to Jane Doe's request for tax returns as if same was fully 
set forth in this section. 
Wherefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court issue and order: 
Once again, a ruling on these issues cannot be made in a vacuum. This court must, as it has done in the past, 
consider the other related cases and the allegations made therein when considering whether a response to a particular 
discovery requests would implicate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. am DEs 242, 283 and 462. 
EFTA00317244

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 35 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 35 
a. 
granting the relief requested above as to Jane Doe and Jane Does 2-8; 
b. 
finding that the danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in these 
cases relative to the above requests is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or 
imaginary; 
c. 
sustaining Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege as it relates to the above 
requests and denying Plaintiffs' Motions in that regard; 
d. 
reversing the Magistrate's Order (DE 462, 480 and 513) relative to 
Request Numbers 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 (Jane Doe) and Request Number 1 (Jane Does 2-8) and 
entering an amended order sustaining Epstein's objections to the Magistrate's Order as to those 
specific requests and not requiring him to produce information relative to same; 
e. 
sustaining Epstein's arguments as stated above and ordering that FRE 
Sections 408, 410 and 502 provide substantive reasoning to sustain Epstein's arguments 
relative to requests numbers 7, 9 and 10 including, but not limited to, the entering of an 
order as provided for under FRE 502(d), denying the requests as irrelevant and as barred 
by Fed. R. Evid. 408 and 410 and issuing a selective waiver order under Fed. R. Evid. 
502(d) thereby applying the selective waiver provision of Rule 502(d) to the information 
exchanged between Epstein's attorneys, the USAO and the State Attorney during the 
criminal stage of said proceedings. Alternatively, and only to the extent this court orders 
production of any information, this court should put the USAO and the State Attorney on 
notice before any disclosure to give each entity an opportunity to raise objections to 
protect their work-product and attorney-mental impressions and to allow Epstein and the 
USAO the opportunity to submit objections and a privilege log outlining why the content 
of the documents sought have no relevance and should be barred from production under 
Fed. R. Evid. 408, 410 and 502(d). This should occur only after an in camera hearing, 
after this court determines what portions of the requested documents should be redacted 
as privileged and only after this court ensures that each and every document produced is 
the subject of a heightened-confidentiality order where disclosure will result in the 
disclosing party being held in contempt of court; 
f. 
likewise, if this court rules that any of the information requested herein 
should be produced (e.g., Requests Numbers 12 and 13 (tax returns and passport — Jane 
Doe) and Request Number 1 (tax returns-Jane Doe 2-8)), it shall only do so after an in 
camera hearing allowing the documents to be reviewed and placed on a privilege log 
outlining why the content of those documents have no relevance and establishing why the 
danger of disclosure is more prejudicial than probative, and after this court determines 
what portions of the requested documents should be redacted as privileged including, but 
not limited to, what portions of the tax returns should be redacted due to the 
confidentiality interests relative to detailed information and financial tax data which was 
provided to the IRS within the context of the protections of 26 U.S.C. 6103. Again, the 
foregoing should only occur after this court ensures that each and every document 
EFTA00317245

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 36 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 36 
produced is the subject of a heightened-confidentiality order where disclosure will result 
in the disclosing party being held in contempt of court; 
g. 
accepting the offered stipulation of net worth as identified above in lieu of 
any net worth discovery being produced; and 
h. 
for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 
Respe 
elated, 
By: 
MI a 
E J. PIKE, ESQ. 
Florida Bar #617296 
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 141 day of April, 2010. 
Respectfully submitted, 
Br 
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. 
Florida Bar No. 224162 
[email protected] 
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. 
Florida Bar #617296 
[email protected] 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, a 33401 
561/842-2820 Phone 
561/515-3148 Fax 
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 
Certificate of Service 
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein 
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 
EFTA00317246

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 37 of 37 
Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 
Page No. 37 
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. 
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 
18205 Biscayne Boulevard 
Suite 2218 
Miami, FL 33160 
305-931-2200 
Fax: 305-931-0877 
ssm@,sexabuseauornev.com 
[email protected] 
Counsel for Plaintiffs 
In related Cases Nos. 0840069, 08-80119, 08-
80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08-
80994 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
AUerbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 
561-659-8300 
Fax: 561-835-8691 
jagescabellsouth.net 
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein 
Farmer , Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & 
Lehrman, PL 
425 N. Andrews Avenue 
Suite 2 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 
Phone: 954-524-2820 
Fax: 954-524-2822 
[email protected] 
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-
80893, - • 
Paul G. Cassell, Esq. 
Pro Hac Vice 
332 South 1400 E, Room 101 
Salt Lake City, UT 84112 
801-585-5202 
801-585-6833 Fax 
[email protected] 
Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe 
Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. 
Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 
224 Datura Street, Suite 900 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
561-832-7732 
561-832-7137 F 
isidrogarcia©bellsouth.net 
Counsel .for:Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-
80469 
' 
Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. 
Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. 
Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 
Miami, FL 33130 
305 358-2800 
Fax: 305 358-2382 
[email protected] 
kezell@podhurstcom 
Counsel for PlaintiOS• in Related Case 
EFTA00317247