EFTA01117377

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-1VIARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff; 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
Related cases: 
08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 
CONFIDENTIAL 
EYES ONLY 
DEFENDANT'S, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST 
FOR RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE 
MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2009 (DE 242). WITH 
INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW 
Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his 
undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request 
Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order (DE 242) pursuant to 
Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 4, Rule 4(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e). In support, Epstein 
states: 
I. 
Procedural Rack&round 
1. 
This court entered an order (DE 242) stating that Epstein must provide 
responses to interrogatory numbers 7, 8 and 12 (sic 11) within 10 days from the date of 
said order. The same ruling was made as to request for production numbers 7 and 23. 
Ste DE 242. 
1 
EFTA01117377

2. 
However, Epstein is submitting his motion for Reconsideration and/or 
Request for Rule 4 Appeal and specific objections with supporting case law only as to 
Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11. Responses will be provided as to Interrogatory Number 
8 and Request for Production numbers 7 and 23. 
IL 
Rule 4 Appeal and Review 
3. 
Rule 4 provides, in pertinent part, that: 
Any party may appeal from a Magistrate Judge's Order. . land] [s]uch 
party shall file with the Clerk of Court, and serve on all parties, written 
objections which shall specifically set forth the order, or part thereof, 
appealed from a concise statement of the alleged error in the Magistrate 
Judge's ruling, and statutory, rule, or case authority in support of the 
moving party's position . 
. The District Judge shall consider the appeal 
and shall set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge's order found to be 
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 
The District Judge may also 
reconsider sua sponte any matter determined by a magistrate Judge under 
this Rule. 
a. 
Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 
4. 
Plaintiff served her Amended First Set of Interrogatories on Defendant and 
Request for Production, and Epstein served his responses thereto raising his constitutional 
privileges and guarantees and, in the alternative, raising specific other applicable 
objections. See Exhibits "A" and "B". Plaintiff filed her Motion to Compel (DE 57) 
Epstein filed his Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories 
and Responses to In and 2"d Production of Documents, and Incorporated Memorandum 
of Law. (DE 63) The arguments set forth therein are incorporated herein by reference 
(the "Response Memorandum") such that a concise statement of the Magistrate's error(s) 
relative to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 may be the focus of this Motion for 
Reconsideration and/or Rule 4 Appeal and Review. Plaintiff filed her Reply thereto at 
2 
EFTA01117378

DE 81. 
Thereafter, the Magistrate-Judge entered an order on the above at DE 242 
requiring, among other things, that Epstein respond to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11. 
5. 
Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 and the Responses thereto provide: 
Interrogatory Number 7 - List all time periods during which Jeffrey 
Epstein was present in the State of Florida, including for each the date he 
arrived and the date he departed. 
Answer: 
Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the 
interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to 
respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my 
attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any 
questions relevant to this lawsuit 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. In 
addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant 
also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is 
neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it 
appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 
evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 
2004-2005." Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks information for a time period 
from January 1, 2003 until present. 
Interrogatory Number 11 — Identify all telephone numbers used by 
Epstein, including cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences, 
by stating the complete telephone number and the name of the service 
provider. 
Response: 
Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the 
interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to 
respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my 
attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any 
questions relevant to this lawsuit 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. In 
addition to and without waiving his constitutional privileges, Defendant 
3 
EFTA01117379

--07W 
it la&4tate ern-nit:tat statutes:An an alit ntpUt? allege clamrtutgittg 1.:(9 
also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is 
neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it 
appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 
evidence. Plaintiff's allegations claim a time period of "in or about 2004-
2005" and involve Defendant's Palm Reach residence.' 
(i). 
The Allegations In the Second Amended Complaint and The NPA2 
lartsf4Atj
et caprJ.Jkottict related ezy.fesj are ;ntf,Aflbyj 
:abuse. "OWN 
Meer
 
SiiiiglaRCSahl 
the State of Flo:01,
AciaaR 
faffisreita 
icalsra 
staiatraelyaKto-imemptt 
omogpnixecdusireateitoomes 
Citiil,semied) cox-mai iii.immgawar 
:statutes k#artititt is of 
ptirtt> 
Mint text of. 1: 
[.S.0
tie f act:nal 
and the1/4,9 
jaintitfs 
-9;t3..t2felPP tf f 'If aCRS:DEW :‘'ioliffiRaitaliga 
camwsgazaggiMOl 
aMiNglik 
ailleaffitearagi 
The Court also considered various objections set forth in Defendant's Response Memorandum. See Order 
at [DE 242.) 
CONFIDENTIAL 
EYES ONLY 
EFTA01117380

lie405rffigiiiiWfXhgti
rrtUrgdrtaMWIRIC: _gfMiiitoI*M_tte.:1YnchPini 
r`Nficigiana4:2,i4b) 
is the use of 
Iffinar glAtiablitattatilgraniirrw.
aattligaiiion offaise is the
 of a telephone or a cellular 
14040:terAnuncree Liu! nig whieli use there svas persuasion, 
acoercingiinin 
underage person 1,1 erigage, Itr prostitution- or 
Fitira
cellaa2.. 
hscu s d. i uira. cot4stcti 
Li It ,L;zitoi 
1 I ,Irks 
SiTaa. 
.gythatTliStOte oflititS1641-ASiallii44.aiiability to hita 
Maktraliiigaithus 
Jai 
MaRlital
lagita 
the la3 
_t 
Q 
ao'a.as ,u IS 
tioaaTIWOTICA-re Rag 
.violation;..,,
rtla-WA 
tjnited 
al 
fulls ._4104iisSecl. iniatelledEN 
person';. 
7 43/47,i 
testitnonia 
closures regarding dates rpstefitt ateled to.antih:orti the Staarga 
cy90d, spity_t utt. a link in the chain of L.L.i„IL14:!lia -jOiltriS 
aniii614111.11400,0T70:s to 18 
.'_42;!I)) vioJatiorN 
tb~1,a4likilLi:SCl. 2-123 ) tafipngshiahc Dirge( 
vAstit ation turthoclefoonstratinw.the 
rtariittoi: is, as requirtxl, b.a.ed uti 
a link in the chain of 
CONFIDENTIAL 
EYES ON Y 
EFTA01117381

Nat::•tblifilTiniinraftweaNNMEINW:." 
Vt§e to him 
lecniirod by (oft-map \ 
Tnited States. 
1 US; 40:741.4 
. 
_ 
t2itfl_S; the United States „Supreme 
ha.s• expre,ssitenSikakikal 
igariMa*oll 
the polity ‘‘ ithin the ambit of Filth Ainearitari4 
rden 
an; alleuation that he yiiagcl niter of_ the :above-descii' 
Wirffiffe :RinoLinat._ 
"a'" 
•ffiracaltinnrifisck}sure 
that would furthkalirtfjelart
-againA 
17 (c,..00 I i. 
----likailti!,$arah 
Fii4affitaareliffa 
fleeted a pal iicular 
F.pstdri< Kiln) fi tell 
On,  
• 
2" An: ( or iplainta. 
-MEM
 
 24221nSinunt It I. the plaintiff gnial 
kgniting• cssuie
ktitp-Visphene. Cati.,o4„41,Seept4Aunnikartalal 
Fitt that' 
• 
v-oulci -he naked on the massage table: anciA,*k  
LELV:iityin 
ney1(:)1 to 'Me ur 111Ote— 1 eWil 
RiFeition andii 
m•2 the gni 
, gdna:" 1d:1[1 Fdthibitatna
tigra 
Win 
Plaintillutggog'Stenea 
awl hum& iikNeaand 
at so owns 
llf 
CONFIDENTIAL 
EYES ONLY 
EFTA01117382

raltaWE
;- 
info 
  
atikttitina 
anaarrar
rta
a
Th
fr i
trAiligita 
Eft 
grAigiiii
ir,rfof the Eilligationriaig ,Ws
graartgaregasiThl 
'Wirtiittg
rn n Ylotida, New York and in St. '1 liona4 
iffaffrgiietit of eiiiininaUPi'sae.-aleat 
and pit -tent as 11psreinliTtTifiilL 
..... 
Ou nder 
tit:: United States Aitorne$0.1#ce t7tISAO".).. .which is. explained 
'thAilaiiiekipv;tleclgiti in his Rusnonse ivfeitaitiTh
s TittEild in. tlie.;COtirt..4.0rcit#,:.(0134,244 
ein entered into a--'N'otiaikagrilii'eorrit&ifittCINFIR 
WaykaSiice 
tor (he tidiSArNMIa-7:466.6:91fai4a. thirtffl 
SEPSaa41$1MWiliiiSitask
—MTlifo a Pica Atifeeinentall 
Bea 
rida. 1.1). _its terms. the Ni':'
:30 2O8: As t,ietriiia.u.raniiifiti,14,A,
Fad 
r' gXilWsiiiijs deferred as lung as.,*1,prrhs 
gorsiznurgaiikii*id 
fIccsoictraiiaii-iaternoscii*yanee t 
it i5 
taaagrAieffihalitly until the NP A e.illittlierins in late 2010 talc' as long as 
fir,tiftWeCniiis that Fp-tell, has can
:0 conditions. Alt 
resitreetAirag,
< H•nsecution against -EisTaMillWo 
continuo pitiagan. 
GS.Wfiet
ralike 
that the airrtil,iiirginal 
raffedftitiertpStein's ebtenitatice _and attempt to move forward witti-Ai: 
svutlon. Moremer. the NPA does not, pro\ ide Lipstein N‘itil ;in protection fro 
&Waal investiiiiition or prosecution hilijiHtcderal district other than the SnuOicil 
! 9ftloikia. The Sisio!$4.ni
.ai
lticludes :to :Iva iiielikaultiga 
Rilff41.40 in and engage& in iller:Sariziaidi . in districts outside the
CONFIDENTIAL 
EYES ONLY
EFTA01117383

[s the 'fact thairtlith-d7d1RWSVA Ita 
aigit@liciroseeution. ,svitich. the MateistIraie: 
p.4-) In fact. the Order :tcknowledged that 
₹`[tihe danger EPSFIRENCaffirala 
rittifil§ case is subslartial and Leal. 
4Pd t191. MCI eiy taing 
p,10)„lvloz eoN er, several 
Elf4r-19katpiies involve cOrntjjirstidiii'eiW§ that wourd-Orifiti7allink in the .ehain cat 
elm& 
t„ l nl iel, Alitokk,o 
crime, 
t hat l Epstein's Fifth 
/Sig - 
tinilatsctted 
(DE 242, p. 10). For the reasons 
z 
that smite ruline should hair 
7 end I I given the Magistrau)-Judge's 
Stiltictliyilhe 
as toouter intenogatorics and ircu 
gnal6h: requested i.n:iaaWiria 7 and 
and th: 
ralM 116),aaLlt.-1
8 
facilities sucl 
as kkiilidnes 
24;24)fitnitak-ln eitisirtiiierStUto tru \ el 
 
„._ 
travel fron) one of hpstein'§.quror §tatc residences toI.aggicsatina I•lorida to one of 
such residences. sec 2nd Amentacirtaiiit par 7 for averra 
- Wein resides. in 
part. outside Florida thus necessitating interstate travel 
Wenn floriday..::Seelithij 
MEWAfilt 
regai-dint: 
hatini -tilie6dy• stijrthi
psteiti's 
A 
Milariticonnectien withsTaf2e rla
rnaltikl4 
11. 
The Magistrate Judge also denied interrogatory numbers 1, 2, and 10 
because those interrogatories sought the names of Epstein's employees or their telephone 
numbers and thus "would famish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute 
Epstein of a crime." (DE 242, p.8-9). Additionally, this court denied interrogatory 
CONFIDENTIAL 
E‘O nwiy 
8 
EFTA01117384

numbers 13, 14 and 17 because those asked Epstein to identify persons or witnesses that 
have knowledge of the events in question. Id_ at p. 8. In making the decision, the court 
recognized, much like this Motion for Reconsideration and/or Appeal contends, that ". . . 
the facts alleged in the Complaints, the elements needed to convict Epstein of a crime, 
and . . . the Court's knowledge concerning the cases at issue" provide a basis for Epstein 
to raise the privilege based upon "genuinely threatening questions" which could furnish a 
link in the chain of evidence needed to convict Epstein of a crime. 
(DE 242, p.18) 
United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). 
b. 
The District Court Judge Court Should Reverse or Modify The Magistrate 
Judge's Order (DE 242) Relative to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 Because The 
Specific Findings Therein Are Erroneous and Contrary to Law 
(i) Specific Objections 
12. 
In his Response Memorandum, Epstein cites authority supporting his 
application of the 5th Amendment Privileges and other constitutional privileges in which 
he relies upon in objecting to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11. In addition to those 
arguments and objections, this court should consider the arguments and objections set 
forth herein. 
13. 
In short, the Magistrate Judge's Order requires Epstein to answer 
Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 based upon the finding that his objections are ". . . so 
general and sweeping in nature [that they] amount[] to a blanket assertion of the [Fifth 
Amendment] privilege." (DE 242, p.11) Obviously, Epstein objects to such a ruling, and 
provides below detailed reasoning demonstrating the validity of Epstein's objections that 
answers to the subject interrogatories would realistically and necessarily furnish a link in 
the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against him and would require him to 
9 
EFTA01117385

provide self-incriminating evidence relative to this case and to the other related cases that 
could result in a specific hazard of self-incrimination. For the reasons set forth below, 
Epstein's justified concern with regard to answering Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 and 
the resulting waiver of his Fifth Amendment Privilege in this regard and/or providing 
self-incriminating information is substantial, real and not merely imaginative. 
Accordingly, the District Court Judge should reverse and/or modify the Magistrate's 
Order relative to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11. 
(ii) Argument and Memorandum of Law 
14. 
By answering Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11, Epstein is being compelled 
to testify as to the issues and facts not only asserted in Plaintiffs Second Amended 
Complaint, but also to facts which present 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. Again, the information sought all relate to potential federal claims 
of violations of 
"4-• - 
V 4-ea nil,- • 11 
15. 
Here, Epstein's whereabouts and telephone numbers are central issues to 
this case and other related cases. Answers to the interrogatories will undoubtedly result in 
subsequent subpoenas requesting information regarding Epstein's whereabouts and his 
numbers for his cellular telephones and landlines in ANY of his residences, which will 
obviously reveal the individuals Epstein spoke to, and the time and place where the 
conversations occurred. If Epstein's travel to and from Florida is identified and he is 
compelled to provide his telephone information, that information coupled together could 
subsequently be used to incriminate him and it might be used to prosecute him for a 
criminal offense. kg infra. In fact, providing his telephone information would not only 
10 
EFTA01117386

incriminate Epstein on the elements required to establish a criminal offense, but in this 
case it is asking Epstein to incriminate himself by providing information that could lead 
to the identification of potential witnesses against him. Epstein would also be providing 
information that would later result in documents being subpoenaed and possibly 
produced relative to his travel itinerary and his telephone records. As such, Epstein is 
now being asked to provide testimonial disclosures that would communicate statements 
of fact by admitting that he did travel to and from Florida on certain occasions and by 
admitting that he had certain telephone numbers and providers, thereby requiring him to 
admit the very facts upon which Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is based i.e. 
presence in Florida at the time of an allegation of misconduct or control of a particular 
telephone at the time of a claim that the plaintiff was recruited and will inexorably result 
in leads to further documents such as travel records and/or telephone records that 
themselves can be predictably used to bolster the criminal-related allegations against 
Epstein. See generally Hoffman v United States 341 US 479. 486 (19511.  U.S. v 
Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 36 (2000). 
1 
'istiate's Orcie 
brder to reach a di 
L'nticement-
(a) WItite\teir'1,:tioSiiitiglyt- pt:truaddt4., inditats, entices. or coerce-; any 
individual to trovi,/ in interctuw or foreign eonnneriT, or in airy Terrify:* 
or Possession ,Of' the tinned Stoles, t0; engage ill prostitution, or in any 
sexual activity tior wh:ett au) persor. Call- he charged with a erithinal 
6fIcliSe. 
ZItten1 )V to do 
:That! be fined 1,ndicr.flu title or intprisork:d 
o,; mote than 20 years. or bra:. 
CONFIDENTIAL 
EYES ONLY 
1 1 
EFTA01117387

(I)) V, hoovci. using the mad or any facility Or
:rata of intrkslate 
foreign commerce, or rCithin the yerial maritime and territorial 
jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces. entices. o4 
coerces LIRp individual v ho has not attained the age of IS ears, to engage.
prostitution or all) sexual activity lilt which any person can he charged 
with a crizninal iifl'en.te, or attempts to do so, shall be tilled tinder this title 
and m pri spped: potde§t§.-timn 
yeatspr for jite.' 
y...:
123.ina'
_stiliiiirateggiaittitS to Intel rogattu 
gIFRiiiiialithg;entieti5Peinercing_ariOplividital to travel :II 
ffilfia_Ktr3reirinicointhetiar:
ticUriy-1 enlio  or Possession 
rt 
v. Adens kites, to 
in any SC:N0n' ael:Ht V for which arlt:ligeian he clear tad with 
I
MERRE&C 
-Maim! 
td. Interroidatory Nuinher 7 ask> to 
Earratreagi5recalt ilt Hort -11 and -he date. 
th -d aert-tre 
i.e.. tr.,- clrii
Latiatiff:,alleges th4t Epstein en awed a -scheme andpl 
tt:;;Sphaes of residence (i.e.. 'Florida, Now York .and 
.
,..bratait'leitteth)tcwicle: this ii4.101Wiitiobtlint -211041.;43321WW 
Pla nil 9.01iiitteWit
'er MaiiWriVe2014.4g3.0101M 
seif-therilllili4Witail thalaitraataritiyA 
cfait4ict for 0.a 
anisigagaatiii 
should not compel Epstein 
: 
ciinstituustryil xiglit§,widerjhe ink 
BitOrlinagitagintairti 
38.
`''Next. the urtdeitti 
4l !idea. 
th
Theio. 
-. 
or means of interstate or 
alikrtsTkor titheaVitHataiMulliWiiitfthigiagetjon of the united Sir 5 
or coerces anytit 
AO wh. ha, no attained tici 
CONFIDENTIAL 
EYES ONLY 
12 
EFTA01117388

imanaatKei
i.EMn i
, lyats on can 
charged with 3 criminaL offense, Rititempts to 41.1tentalfliW
ENumber 
TriMASSONERnetli 
televlione an in bci.irat trabgtakeiti , 
cellular 
aZilaences, 
-pleletetelcplione nwhber 
iiindffSEEFROOr• 
Plaintiff-War 
MEM 
'stein engaged 
"selicnic 
g 
at fits Pi?Pc."; 
Duda. New `turf . and .St. 
1.WegiNgMiffiffi*fSiat 
thisaikaiirii6 
pro\ ide a clue or a 
Afaiiiti: 
or 6thei-s
c:; satisty one or more of the 
aeMOHNISejaitia
le
noi 
ally Lieilit) or !SS 
ffignalliffiatnWparill
ell-inaon. 
;Intl ma> stita‘itill 
cti under the Ni-'2‘ or in anotherAgtr iiel 10: ;El ally.ged 
$ce ti 
\. ti II. this Court Oicitila not coml.:4144as 
Sri 
tie 
til:OP. as tOkk94101i01PIC-1*:..W1104414915alaticatel 
gerpraigliiin 
Eigoii)Ory) sell7eireiim 
or. the elements reqritekrA, 
:„ 
,erve 
a
ill the ch;lin 
idence iirate! 
. 
prosecute Epstein for a crimplNit- it ser \ es to incrirnin;4e him by asking lTpstein tq 
[demi t\ potential w itnesses.agitt 'him it: his 
omte recoratarc .itcr oh;ttinokl H. an 
ihroth2hsibpoena(s). See:Si/FA 
Significantly, this Court sustained Epstein's objections to Interrogatory Number 
12, which requested information similar to Interrogatory Number 11 (i.e., ". . .telephone 
numbers of employees of Epstein, used in the course or scope of their employment, 
including cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete 
CONFIDENTIAL 
EYES ONLY 
13 
EFTA01117389

telephone number and the name of the service provider.") (DE 242, p.10). In short, the 
Court considered "the nature of the allegations, to wit, a scheme and plan of sexual 
misconduct carried out at Epstein various residences. . . [finding it] entirely reasonable 
for Epstein to assert that forcing him to testify as to. . . his employee's telephone numbers 
[Interrogatory 12] may provide a lead or clue to evidence tending to incriminate him." 
The Magistrate Judge further reasoned that "[n]ot only would such compelled testimony 
self-incriminate him on the elements required to establish a criminal violation, and thus 
serve as a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein for a crime, but in 
some cases serve to incriminate him by asking Epstein to identify potential witnesses 
against him." (DE 242) That same reasoning and conclusion should have been reached 
with regard to Interrogatory Number 11. 
19. 
In addition, compelling Epstein to provide the requested information could 
also lead to or provide a link in the chain of evidence allowing Plaintiff or others to 
satisfy one or more of the elements 
tt.4.t(1 t/i0j 
Given the nature of the allegations, to wit, a scheme and plan of sexual 
misconduct, this court should find it entirely reasonable for Epstein to assert his Fifth 
Amendment privilege as to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11. For instance, Plaintiff 
CONFIDENTIAL 
RIO ONLY 
14 
EFTA01117390

alleges and the Magistrate Judge's Order acknowledges allegations of a scheme where 
Epstein, with the help of his assistant =Mt 
allegedly lured economically 
disadvantaged minor girls to his homes in Palm Beach. New York and St. Thomas, with 
the promise of money in exchange for a massage. As this Court noted in its order, ". . . 
the fact there exists a Non-prosecution Agreement does not mean that Epstein is free 
from future criminal prosecution, and that in fact, 'the threat of prosecution is real, 
substantial, and present.'" 
Accordingly, 
Epstein's travel to and from Florida and the telephone numbers to his cellular telephones 
and landlines would provide information which is protected by the privilege i.e., 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 (91h Cir.), cert. denied, 447 
U.S. 825 (1980). 
19. 
PRA4.61WIT
gr=ggcaz4-Ai i  
:1*133r5t4g, 
05tilrilntrWcP4, 
CONFIDENTIAL 
FVE ONIY 
15 
EFTA01117391

itirigrgEw?, 
;`:Zif3G-.Aft7 
20. 
On their face, Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 may not seem to seek 
incriminating evidence. However, after review of the objections and analysis set forth 
herein, it is clear that responding to same would violate Epstein's Fifth Amendment 
privilege against self incrimination. 
Accordingly, forcing Epstein to answer the 
interrogatories unconstitutionally places him in the position of being compelled to testify 
and provide information that support Plaintiff's version of the facts and which may lead 
to future criminal prosecution. 
21. 
The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial 
compulsion and provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o person...shall be compelled in any 
Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5). 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 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 
CONFIDENTIAL 
PIP§ ONLY 
16 
EFTA01117392

conviction, but also in those instances where "the responses would merely provide a 'lead 
or chic' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate." United States v.. Neff, 615 F.2d 
1235, 1239 (9'h Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 825 (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 Manson 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). 
Accordingly, for these reasons, Epstein's objections to the Magistrate's Order should be 
sustained, and this Court should enter an order reversing and/or modifying the Order 
allowing Epstein to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege and not requiring Epstein to 
provide compelled testimony that might incriminate him. 
Based upon the underlying criminal elements of the targeted offenses , answers to 
Interrogatory Number 7 involving Epstein's travel to and from Florida and Interrogatory 
Number 11 involving Epstein's use of his telephones could provide a lead or clue to 
evidence of an alleged violation of any one of the above target offenses, which could 
result in criminal prosecution, a breach of the NPA and/or self-incriminating evidence 
relating to this case and/or to other cases that may result in criminal prosecution. 
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 491, 494 (ED. PA. 2001). 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. 
17 
EFTA01117393

See also 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"). 
22. 
In this instance, the danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this 
case and on these subject matters is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or 
imaginary. Epstein has met his burden to sustain his 5th Amendment Privilege, and has 
further established that "[t]he danger [he] faces by being forced to testify in this case is 
substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary as required." (DE 242) 
Accordingly, this Court should reverse and/or revise the Magistrate's Order as set forth 
below. 
Wherefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court issue and order: 
a. 
finding that the danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in 
this case relative to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 is substantial and real, and 
not merely trifling or imaginary; 
b. 
sustaining Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privilege as it relates to 
Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 and denying Plaintiffs Motion in that regard; 
c. 
reversing and/or revising the Magistrate's Order (DE 242) relative 
to Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 and entering an amended order sustaining 
Epstein's objections to the Magistrate's Order as to those specific interrogatories 
and not requiring him to testify as to same; and/or 
d. 
remanding this appeal to the 
Magistrate-Judge 
for 
her 
reconsideration of these portions of her order and 
e. 
for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and 
proper. 
By: 
Mle 
J. PIKE, ESQ. 
Flori 
ar #617296 
Certificate of Service 
18 
EFTA01117394

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed 
with the Clerk of the Court using O/1/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is 
being served this day on all counsel of record identified n the 
Rowing Service List in 
the manner specified by CM/ECF on this -31  clay of 
2009. 
Respectfully 
By: 
RO 
JR, ESQ. 
n 
No. 224162 
[email protected] 
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. 
Florida Bar #617296 
[email protected] 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUITIER & 
COLEMAN 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 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 
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 
Adam 13. Horowitz, Esq. 
Mermelstein & Horowitz, PA 
18205 Biscayne Boulevard 
Suite 2218 
Miami, FL 33160 
305-931-2200 
Fax: 305-931-0877 
ssmesexabuseattomev.com 
[email protected] 
Counsel for Plaintiffs 
In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 
08-80232, 0840380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 
08-80994 
Brad Edwards, Esq. 
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 
401 East Las Olas Boulevard 
Suite 1650 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 
Phone: 954-522-3456 
Fax: 954-527-8663 
[email protected] 
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 
0840893 
Paul G. Cassell, Esq. 
Pro Hac Vice 
332 South 1400 E, Room 101 
19 
EFTA01117395

Richard Horace Willits, Esq. 
Richard H. Willits, P.A. 
2290 106 Avenue North 
Suite 404 
Lake Worth, FL 33461 
561-582-7600 
Fax: 561-588-8819 
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 
08-80811 
[email protected] 
Jack Scarola, Esq. 
Jack P. Hill, Esq. 
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 
P.A. 
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard 
West Palm Beach, FL 33409 
561-686-6300 
Fax: 561-383-9424 
[email protected] 
Mh@,searcylaw.com 
Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. 
Bruce Reinhart, Esq. 
Bruce E. Reinhart, PA. 
250 S. Australian Avenue 
Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
561-202-6360 
Fax: 561-828-0983 
ecf@brucereinhartlaw 
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 
561-684-6500 
Fax: 561-515-2610 
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 
08-08804 
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. 
Podhurat Orseck, P.A. 
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 
Miami, FL 33130 
305 358-2800 
Fax: 305 358-2382 
riosefsberg©podhurst.com 
[email protected] 
Counsel for Plaintlffs in Related Cases 
Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 
561-659-8300 
Fax: 561-835-8691 
iagescabellsouth.net 
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
20 
EFTA01117396