EFTA00728616

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 1 of 10 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO. 08-CIV-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 
ORDER 
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Net 
Worth Discovery (D.E. #333). For the following reasons said Motion is granted in part and 
denied in part as follows. 
In this case, which has been consolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are 
former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey 
Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have 
taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when the girls in 
question were approximately 16 years of age. As part of this scheme, Epstein, with the 
help of his assistant 
, allegedly lured economically disadvantaged minor girls 
to his homes in Palm beach, New York and St. 
with the promise of money in 
EFTA00728616

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 2 of 10 
exchange for a massage. Epstein purportedly transformed the massage into a sexual 
assault. 
The three-count Complaint alleges sexual assault and battery (Count I), 
intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count II), and, coercion and enticement to sexual 
activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 (Count III). 
In 2008, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States 
Attorney General's Office for the Federal Southern District of Florida and the State 
Attorney's Office for Palm Beach County. Under the terms of the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement, any criminal prosecution against Epstein is deferred as long as he abides by 
the certain terms and conditions contained therein. If at any time the United States 
Attorney's Office has reason to believe Epstein is in breach of the Agreement, it need only 
provide Epstein's counsel with notice of the breach and then move forward with Epstein's 
prosecution. Accordingly, the mere fact the Government and Epstein have entered into 
a Non-Prosecution Agreement does not mean that Epstein is free from future criminal 
prosecution. 
By the instant Motion Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Epstein to respond to 
various discovery requests (production and interrogatory) which seek information related 
to Epstein's net worth. Defendant has responded by asserting several objections, which 
to the extent necessary shall be discussed subsequently herein, the primary one of which 
is an assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege. 
The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial compulsion and 
provides, in relevant part, that "[n]ci person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be 
a witness against himself." Id. In practice, the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-
incrimination "permits a person not to answer official questions put to him in any other 
proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him 
2 
EFTA00728617

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 3 of 10 
in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing 
Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). 
The privilege is accorded "liberal 
construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure," Hoffman v. United States, 341 
U.S. 479, 486 (1951), and extends not only to answers that would in themselves support 
a criminal conviction, but extends also to those answers which would furnish a link in the 
chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a crime. Id.; Blau v. United States, 
340 U.S. 159 (1950). Thus, information is protected by the privilege not only if it would 
support a criminal conviction, but also in those instances where "the responses would 
merely 'provide a lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate." United States 
v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980). 
The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination comes into play only in 
those instances where the witness has "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a 
direct answer." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486 (citing Mason v. United States, 244 U.S. 362, 365 
(1917)). "The claimant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling 
or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 
(1980). 
When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket 
refusal to answer questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 
F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the privilege must be asserted in response to 
a particular question, and in each instance the burden is on the claimant to justify 
invocation of the privilege. Id. Once a particularized showing has been made, "[fit is for the 
court to decide whether a witness' silence is justified and to require him to answer if it 
clearly appears to the court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its 
validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this 
3 
EFTA00728618

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 4 of 10 
determination the judge is instructed to view the facts and evidence presented on a case-
by-case basis, and "must be governed as much by his perception of the peculiarities of the 
case, as by the facts actually in evidence." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 487. 
The law is well established that the Fifth Amendment privilege may not apply to 
specific documents "even though they contain incriminating assertions of fact or belief, 
because the creation of those documents was not 'compelled' within the meaning of the 
privilege." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). However, in certain 
instances, "'the act of production' itself may implicitly communicate 'statements of fact.'" 
Id. For this reason the Fifth Amendment privilege also encompasses the circumstance 
where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request 
has a compelled testimonial aspect Id. Thus, in those instances where the existence 
and/or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would 
"implicitly authenticate" the requested documents, the act of producing responsive 
documents is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. In re Grand 
Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 
391, 410 (1976)(issue expressed as whether compliance with a document request or 
subpoena "tacitly conceded" the item's authenticity, existence or possession by the 
defendant). 
The Court begins with an analysis of the Fifth Amendment privilege as applied to 
each request or category of requests. In the event the Court determines that a certain 
request does not infringe upon Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege, Epstein's additional 
objections to that request shall be addressed. Where appropriate, the Court looks to those 
portions of Defendant's Response Memorandum submitted in camera. In this regard, the 
Court notes that in their Reply Memorandum (D.E. #426), Plaintiffs take issue with 
4 
EFTA00728619

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 5 of 10 
Defendant's failure to obtain court approval before submitting the subject material for in 
camera review. While the Court agrees the better practice would have been to obtain court 
approval before such filing, under the unique circumstances of this case, the undersigned 
does not find such lapse fatal to Defendant's position. For purposes of completeness, 
however, the undersigned hereby sua sponte allows the in camera submission provided 
by Defendant, which the undersigned has this day submitted for filing under seal in the 
Clerk's Office. 
The requests at issue are in the form of interrogatories and requests for production 
and essentially seek overlapping information, namely, all federal and state income tax 
returns and related documents filed with the government between 2003 and 2008 (Prod. 
Reqst. No. 1 and Interr. Reqst. Nos. 2 - 3); all documents relating to Defendant's assets, 
liabilities, income, expenses and net worth for the last five years (Prod. Reqst. No. 2 and 
Interr. Reqst. Nos 1-7, 10-12); all documentation relating to financing or loans requested 
or applied for by the Defendant including loan applications, appraisals, financial 
spreadsheets, etc. (Prod. Reqst. No. 3 and Interr. Reqst. Nos. 1-3, 7); all appraisals 
indicating fair market value of real estate and other property owned by Defendant (Prod. 
Reqst. No. 4 and Intern Reqst. Nos. 8-9 ); and, all documents relating to any investment 
or savings accounts owned or controlled by Defendant such as account statements and 
summaries (Prod. Reqst. No. 5 and Interr. Reqst. Nos. 1-2, 10-12). As stated previously 
Defendant raised the same general objection to each of these requests, the primary 
objection being that to force him to respond would violate his Fifth Amendment privilege 
against self-incrimination. 
With the exception of Prod. Reqst. No. 1, which shall be discussed subsequently, 
the Court finds the subject requests objectionable in that they seek compelled 
5 
EFTA00728620

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 6 of 10 
statements/admissions that could reasonably furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed 
to prosecute Epstein in future criminal proceedings related both to the issues in the instant 
case and/or to the issues that relate to a separate criminal action about which Defendant 
has a substantial and reasonable basis to be concerned about. In the latter regard the 
Court relies, in part, upon the submission provided by Defendant in camera with respect 
to the "target offenses" referenced therein. 
As noted previously, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination is 
accorded "liberal construction," Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486, and extends not only to answers 
that would in themselves support a criminal conviction, but extends also to those answers 
which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for 
a crime. Id. Thus to be afforded protection, the answer need not necessarily be enough 
to support a criminal conviction; it is enough if the response merely provides a lead or clue 
to evidence having a tendency to incriminate. Neff, 615 F.2d at 1239. 
In asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege, Epstein expresses a concern that if 
forced to respond to the subject requests regarding his financial net worth, financial history 
and witnesses with knowledge of his actions, he may be deemed to have waived his right 
to decline to respond to other inquiries related to the same subject matter in this case, the 
related cases and those matters outlined in Epstein's in camera submission. Given the 
allegations raised in the various Complaints and the elements required to convict Epstein 
of a crime, and considering the background facts underlying the instant case, and the 
issues outlined in Defendant's submission in camera, the Court finds these concerns are 
reasonable, real and not unjustified. It goes without saying that being forced to produce 
documents and/or produce lists identifying the existence of the detailed financial 
information sought and disclosing information regarding the identity and location of 
6 
EFTA00728621

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 7 of 10 
potential witnesses against Defendant is tantamount to forcing testimonial disclosures that 
would communicate statements of fact. See Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410 (noting that the Fifth 
Amendment covers situations where the act of producing documents has "communicative 
aspects of its own wholly aside from contents of the papers produced"). 
Apart from Defendant's justified concerns regarding waiver, are the very real 
concerns that by forcing Defendant to respond to the subject discovery requests regarding 
his financial status and history, the Court risks providing the government with a link in the 
chain of evidence needed to convict Defendant of a crime. The potential for providing such 
a "link" is high when one considers that by forcing Defendant to respond, he will be 
implicitly communicating statements of fact, authenticating documents and testifying to 
their location, as well as providing clues as to the identity and location of witnesses that by 
such disclosure may serve to further a criminal investigation against him. Further, as the 
requests at issue would require disclosure in connection with Defendant's ownership of 
assets and transfers of assets inside and outside the United States, such disclosure could 
reveal the availability to him and/or use by him of interstate facilities, which again may 
implicate Defendant in additional crimes. In short, the requests at issue seek to have 
Defendant be a witness against himself, assist with Plaintiffs' investigation and identify 
areas that could result in future prosecution of Defendant, a result clearly prohibited by the 
Constitution. In this regard, Plaintiffs' claims that Defendant's constitutional rights are "not 
even remotely implicated" because the requests relate solely to Defendant's net worth and 
are "unrelated to Defendant's inducement of minors to sexual activity,"' ring hollow. See 
Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1263 (the "privilege" against self-incrimination does 
' See Plaintiffs' Mtn. (D.E. #333), p.7. 
7 
EFTA00728622

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 8 of 10 
not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution and also covers 
those circumstances where the disclosures would not be directly incriminating, but could 
provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence). 
In accordance with the foregoing the Court finds that such forced disclosure with 
regard to the requests at issue presents a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination 
in this case, in other related cases, and relative to other potential realistically based federal 
claims. The Court finds further that the danger Defendant faces by being forced to testify 
in this instance is "substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary" as required. 
Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 128. On this basis the Court finds the privilege raised as to all 
requests other than Prod. Reqst. No. 1, which shall be discussed shortly, validly asserted. 
Accordingly, Defendant's objection as it relates to each of the subject net worth discovery 
requests, other than Prod. Reqst. No. 1, is sustained and Defendant need not produce 
documents or serve answers to said discovery requests. 
The Court does not hold similarly with respect to Prod. Reqst. No. 1, which seeks 
"all federal and State income tax returns, including all W-2 forms, 1099 forms and 
schedules, for tax years 2003-2008," The law is well established that the Fifth Amendment 
privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to documents whose existence is 
known to the government or is a foregone conclusion. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410; United 
States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44 (2000); United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313, 325 
(D.C. Cir. 2006). Thus, while the Fifth Amendment covers situations where the act of 
producing documents has "communicative aspects of its own wholly aside from contents 
of the papers produced" Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410, the doctrine does not apply where the 
government has "prior knowledge of either the existence or the whereabouts of 
the...documents ultimately produced... ." Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 44. 
8 
EFTA00728623

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 9 of 10 
Prod. Reqst. No. 1 seeks production of documents the government is already in 
possession of, making the government's prior knowledge of the documents sought an 
obvious and undeniable "foregone conclusion." As such, Defendant can not reasonably 
and in good faith argue that in producing these documents to Plaintiff he will somehow be 
incriminating himself. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 383 F.3d 905, 910 (9'h Cir. 2004) (noting 
there can be no self-incrimination by production where the "existence and location of the 
documents ... are a 'foregone conclusion' and [the claimant] ... adds little or nothing to the 
sum total of the Government's information by conceding that he in fact has the 
documents."). 
Defendant's alternative objection that tax returns enjoy a higher degree of protection 
than ordinary financial documents because tax returns are "confidential under federal law,"2
does little to advance his cause. The Court has already addressed and rejected this 
argument finding that where, as here, the moving party has demonstrated a need for the 
tax returns at issue, the court's order requiring such disclosure voids the confidentiality 
concerns the law was designed to protect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in order to 
ameliorate Defendant's concerns in this regard the undersigned hereby orders that the tax 
returns and related documents filed with the government that are subject to production by 
virtue of the within Order may be disclosed only to the parties and to the attorneys of 
record in this case and to the agents of such parties and/or attorneys and may only be 
utilized for purposes of this litigation. In accordance with the above and foregoing, it is 
hereby, 
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Net 
= See Defendant's Resp., p.13. 
9 
EFTA00728624

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 
Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 10 of 10 
Worth Discovery (D.E. #333) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART IN 
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER. For the reasons stated herein, the 
Court finds Defendant's Fifth Amendment objections validly asserted with respect to each 
of the subject requests other than Prod. Reqst. No. 1. As for Prod. Reqst. No. 1, 
Defendant is ordered to produce the documents responsive to this request within ten (10) 
days from the date hereof, or if said documents are not in Defendant's possession or 
immediate control, must produce a release with regard to same within five (5) days from 
the date hereof. 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in West Palm Beach Florida, this 4th day of 
March, 2010. 
4-" 
0 477,6-09‘.. 
 
LINNEA R. JOHN„S N 
UNITED STATE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
CC: 
The Hon. Kenneth A. Marra 
All Counsel of Record 
I0 
EFTA00728625