EFTA02729648

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. Oa 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 flied a motion for protective order
on September 9, 2009 attempting to prohibit MrEpstein's presence at the deposition. The
Defendant immediately filed a response (an Emergency Motion) on September II, 2009
requesting that the coon 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
14i° 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, be was readily available.
2
ge
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011
CONFian eNTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331958
EFTA_0020 4684
EFTA02729668

Case 9:08-ov-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. Luttier
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. Luttier 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 attorney(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. Lanier
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. Luttier, had a court reporter and a
videographer 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
Page
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet 19-411
CONFIDENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331959
EFTA 00204685
EFTA02729669

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 lv1r. 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 Plaintiffs 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. Lottler 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
0911212019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFPIDa ENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331960
EFTA_00204686
EFTA02729670

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 Jane 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(d)(2) and (3)(A) and (C) and its reference to 37(a)(5)), 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 Plaintiffs 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 tenninatekancel 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 5500 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. Kliman, by her
own comments, her significant emotional trauma relates to physical and verbal abuse by a prior
boyfriend, Preston Vineyard, and deaths associated with two close friends, Chris and Jen.
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
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet 19-111
CONFIal5ENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331961
EFTA_00204687
EFTA02729671

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 6 of 8
Buie 7.1 A. 3. Certlficadon of Pre-Filine 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 lane 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 lane 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.
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 te day of
September 2009.
Certificate of Service
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
6
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFPIDENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331962
EFTA 00204688
EFTA02729672

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 7 of 8
Stuart S. Mennelatein, Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq.
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler
Mamehtein & Horowitz, P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard
18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1650
Suite 2218 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Miami, FL 33160 Phone: 954-522-3456
305-931-2200 Fax: 954-527-8663
Fax: 305-931-0877 bedwardaarra-law.com
onensexaboseattorriev.coM Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-
[email protected] 80893
Counself or Plaintiffs
In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 0840119, 08-
80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
80994 Pro Sac Vice
332 South 1400 E, Room 101
Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Richard H. Willits, PA 801-585-5202
229010°i Avenue North 801-585-6833 Fax
Suite 404 gassellaillaw.utahedu
Lake Worth, FL 33461 Co-counself or Plaintiff Jane Doe
561-582-7600
Fax: 561-588-8819 Isidro M. Garcia, Esq.
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- Garcia Law Finn, PA
80811 224 Damn Street, Suite 900
in jiby m Loar a West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561-832-7732
561.832-7137 F
Jack Scarola, Esq. isidrogarcia@bellsouthoet
Jack P. Hill, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 80469
P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
561-686.6300 Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
Fax: 561-383-9424 25 West Hagler Street, Suite 800
inesearcvlaw,com Miami, FL 33130
iobasearcvlaw.corn 305 358-2800
Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. Fax: 305 358.2382
riosefsbetaloodhurstcom
Isegellgyodhurstcom
Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Qua Nos.
Bruce E. Reinhart, PA 0940591 and 09-40656
250 S. Australian Avenue
Suite 1400 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
7
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011
CONFPIDENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331963
EFTA_002 04689
EFTA02729673

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 8 of 8
5
W
61
es
-2
t
0
P
2
a
-
lm
63
B
60
e ach, FL 33401 Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South
Fax: 561.828.0983
Suite 1400
scfebrucereinhardaw.com
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
Counself or Defendant Sarah Kellen 561-659-8300
Fax: 561-835-8691
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq.
Counself or Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
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
akuvinr*iccastw.com
[email protected]
Respectfully subm
By:
ROBERT D. RnToN, JR., ESQ.
Florida Bar Ilfo. 224162
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
Florida Bar #617296
rupikeabelclawsom
BURMAN, CRTITON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561/842-2820 Phone
561/2134164 Fax
(Co-Counself or Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
8
09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFITDENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331964
EFTA 00204690
EFTA02729674

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 1
6.4
BURMANSRITTON
LUTTIER&COLEMANLLP
YOUR TRUSTED ADVOCATES
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
J. MICHAEL WRMANL PAM AirntvitilgaNTI
(MOM W. CO. •••••• PA ISTIGATOO,
ADM! D. CAMON. it. PA JESSICA CM>WILL
lEMJARD MADDER WISH M. MOUNIM
MARX LIMIER PA AMP S1DX4N-ISAPING
JII/RLYC Rnn SIM STOKES
MICHAEL J. PIKE PAULIOALS
MIAMI* MCNAMARA RUDA PITA ff. SUONTK
DAVID YMIIMA OP COW114‘
'nets mon 'ammo MR WAL vent
E=D RI=CO 1,,
iANIITTOD TO rucncs M PWRICIA COWIA00
August 27, 2009
Sent by E.Mall and U.S. Mail
Stuart S. Mermelsteln, Esq.
Herman & Mermelsteln, PA
18205 Biscayne Blvd.
Suite 2218
Miami, FL 33160
Re: Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein
Dear Stuart
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.
Cordiall
Robe Crttton, Jr.
RDC/clz
cc: Jack A. Goldberger, Esq.
EXHIBIT /
303 BANYAN BOULEVARD. stun 400 • WEST PALM BEACH. FL 33401 • PHONk S61-842-2820 • FAL 561.844-6929 • mAHAPICLCLAW.COM
WWW8CLCLAW.COM
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFITDENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331965
EFTA_00204691
EFTA02729675

Codo-996 eoiraiam Dert.umunt age 1 o 11
Case 9:08-cv80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 1 of 33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOYfNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant
Rented Caste:
0480232, 08-80380, 08-$0381, 0840991,
0840993, 08-80811, 081I0893, 09-00419,
0940581, 0940656, 09-80802, 0941092.
Defendant Epstein's Emergency Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Motion For
Protective Order fDE 292) And Emergency Motion To Allow The
Attendance CHJeffrev Epstein At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs And Response
In Opposition To Mutants', Jane Doe Nos. 2-8, Motion For Protective Order
As To 'effigy Entail's Attendance At The Deposition Of Plaintiffs. Who
Incorporated Memorandum of Law
Defendant, Jeffity Epstein, by and through his undersigned counsel, and pursuant to all
applicable rules, including Local Rule 7.1(e) and Local Rule 12, hereby tiles 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 And
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 Backstround
1. On August 19, 2009. Defendant sent a Notice for Taking the Deposition of Jane
Doe No. 4 for September 16, 2009. ace ExItibit "1"
2
EXHIBIT
09112)2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFPITTENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331966
EFTA 00204692
EFTA02729676

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 sec 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. Does 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,
09,12,'2019 Agency to Agency Requet 19-411
CONFPIDa ENTIAL
SDNCGM00331967
EFTA_00204693
EFTA02729677

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
parties 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
slated that "Please be advised that Mr. Epstein plans to be in attendance at the deposition of your
client. lie does rot 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 11, 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. 11 is
also a Plaintiff in the federal court proceeding Jane Doe // v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-C1V-
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
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFia153E4 NTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331968
EFTA 00214694
EFTA02729678

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. F.pstein's
attendance at a deposition where, as is reflected in the order, the communication wilt 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 the's. eases. 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. la 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).
•Ar •
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).
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet 19-111
CONFIal5ENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331969
EFTA_00204695
EFTA02729679

Case 9:08-cv-S0119-KAM Document 305-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 5 of 11
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 5 of 33
Page 5
Or**
The Court: Okay. But again, you're in agreement with everyone cisc so far
that's spoken on behalf of a plaintiff that defending the case in the normal course
of conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? (Ex. "A,"
p30).
Mr. Horowitz — counsel for Jane Does 2-7: Subject to your rulings, of course,
yes. (EL "A," p.30).
•**
The Court: But you're not taking the position that other than possibly doing
something in litigation which is any other discovery, motion practice,
investigations that someone would ordinarily do in the course of defending a civil
case would constitute a violation of the agreement? (Ex. "A," p.34).
Ms. Villafana: No, your honor. I mean, civil litigation is civil litigation, and
being able to take discovery is part of what civil litigation is all about... But...,
Mr. Epstein is entitled to take the deposition of a Plaintiff and to subpoena
records, etc. (Ex. "A," p.34)
12. It is clear from the transcript attached as Exhibit "4" that each of the Plaintiffs'
attorneys, including Mr. Horowitz for Jane Does 2-8, expected and conceded that
regular/traditional discovery would take place (i.e., discovery, motion practice, depositions,
requests for records, and investigations).
13. Importantly, Plaintiffs' counsel advised the undersigned that they coordinate their
efforts in joint conference calls at least two times per month. At recent depositions of two
witnesses, Alfredo Rodriguez and Juan Alessi, five different plaintiffs' attorneys questioned the
witnesses for approximately six to eight hours, often repeating the same or similar questions that
had previously been asked.
14. Clearly, the Plaintiffs' counsel wish to control discovery and how the Defendant
is allowed to obtain information to defend these cases. However, the court has ruled on a
number of these issues as follows:
A. Plaintiffs' counsels sought to preclude the Defendant from serving third
party subpoenas and allowing only Plaintiffs' counsel to obtain
09112/2019 Agency to Agency Roque: 19-411
CONFPIDa ENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331970
EFTA_00204696
EFTA02729680

Case 9:08-ov-80119-KAM Document 305-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 6 of 11
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 6 of 33
Page 6
depositions and those materials and "filter them" to defense counsel.
That motion was denied, and the court tailored a method such that the
Defendant could obtain the records directly.
B. Plaintiffs' counsels sought to limit the psychological psychiatric
examination in C.M.A. v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen (Case No. 08-
CIV-801311), as to time, subject matter and scope. However, Magistrate
Johnson entered an order denying the requested restrictions.
C. Other Plaintiffs' attorneys have said that they object to requested
psychological exam of their dient(s), thus motions for such exams will
Dow need to be filed; yet all seek millions of dollars in damages for
alleged psychological end emotional trims.
D. Many Plaintiffs' object to discovery regarding current ma past
employment (although they me seeking loss of income, both in past and
future).
E. All Plaintiffs object to prior sexual history, consensual and forced as
being irrelevant, although in many of the medical records that see now
being obtained, as well as the psychiatric exams done by Dr. Kliman,
there is reference to rape, molestation, abusive relationships (both
physical and vabal), prior abortions, illegal drugs and alcohol abuse.
15. Clearly, Plaintiffs wish to make allegations; however, they forget that they must
meet their burden by proving same. Meeting that burden and disproving those allegations is not
possible if this court allows Plaintiffs to stifle and/or control the discovery process.
16. Specifically, with regard to Jane Doe No. 4, which is the deposition set for next
week, September 16, 2009, the plaintiff has in her past (see affidavit of Richard C.W. Hall,
M.D., an expert psychiatrist retained by Defendant to conduct exams on various claimants.)
Exhibit "5"
A. Sought counseling due to a dysfunctional borne situation, specifically with
regard to her father. She described herself as being angry, bitter,
depressed and having body image problems;
B. Had an ex-boyfriend, Preston Vinyard, who was, on information and
belief. a drug dealer who she lived with;
C. Had drug and alcohol problems herself; and
949
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet 19.411
CONFPIDI ENTIAL
SDNY_GM00331971
EFTA_00204697
EFTA02729681

Cas C e a 9 se :0 9 8 P : a - 0 c g 8 v e - - 7 c 8 v 0 - 1 80 1 1 9 1 -K 9- A K M A M Do D c o u c m um en e t n 3 t 0 2 5 9 - 6 3 E E n n te te re re d d o o n n F L F S L O S D D D oc o k c e k t e 0 t 9 0 /1 9 1 /1 /2 7 0 /2 0 0 9 0 9 Pa P g a e g 7 e o 7 f 3 o 3 f 11
D. b t S h o p i y s o f k ri l e e a n w w d s i u t a h i n t ? d t ) w fa o a m n p d i s l y y c d i h i s d s ia u t e r n s i o s . t t s r w ef h e e r n e n s c h e e w Ep as s te s i i n x , t ee b n u t o r d s id ev e r n e t f e e e re n n ( c b e e f h o e re r
17. There are police reports that reflect that:
A. b a In n eg d S a V n ep i s n t p e y i m t a t r i b d n e g r b o a 2 s n 0 e 0 d h 4 e o , r n a a n a b d n a c t a t a e r l g r l y u in m r g e e h p n o a t r w t a h w c e h a r e s e a f h t i e e l r e . g d r a r b eg b a e r d d i h n e g r J b a y n e th e D n o e c c k N o a . n d 4
C B . . t d V h r g V A r e e i i i l n r v i i l a n r l s y i f t y o n r v i a o i a g r e e i r n d n h n d a s i d n h S c w d l w i e e a p a p t a l s h t i e s e n i t a t h m a v J p e a r a i b h r n n t e e t y r g i u s r e s m t a i e e t 2 c r h e d 0 y a a . e l n 0 l 2 s 4 d i y 0 n T c , t 0 e h t h a n 2 h D e n e e e , r y d e e r w o c e f h e l i v f w e s m e e t d n r h a r b . b e s e s e a f h a r e l a l e r c y d e 2 c w o n 0 i a m d c a 0 b e e s 3 e u n o s , s t t t h n i i a w v c a l n y e t i v d t f t i h t o h o o c u e l J e h a r J n t t a n e w a c r e e n g e o n e e D f d ( s i o D 1 l t e a c 4 w o r o ) N t e e i p y t d o h e e N . n a a o 4 e r r s . d e , s c o w e 4 w k l r , h d l i h e o e . e h s u n s r i s e s
b t t c h i c h c t l s e o a e e a a h h c e " i l f e a e m l c r a a r b c i c t i b d s o t i h n t w o s e v d e f e t n n o e h o i n , t p c r a 1 t i y a o t f s m i a 8 t o e n l s e t i a r u . h i v c c s c l r e o i o e l e s s t i s . u l h o v t c r o a i a o n i t s o M t t r n s g u o n s g n o i o e r r h o m o t f d t r c e t e e p o d h h t o o w r i r o i a v m v . n n o s l e a e k l l p e n y a r r i e u t , r n h r d a s l a g i t i e . s o b n d c . d e o d E E e s h n e t W p h x h p a a s - s e a v s t t i b t i h t t t i e t e r o h o , u P e i i y i r a n t n p n l i f n a ' o ' b o s r s d i h i n y r n a e t h e a t s n a o E r i l a s d f n u n i d p f A s o s s y u s o t e t ' m t a e h f e t d n o r e e i J p e a c n n r n a r p u e n d o g s o m u t e e e c o s o n d v e o a i t D t s e i t h d i l i C s r o o i c a s f s n e r o r l i h o a s m i g N e o e r t h c t n p c o s o t a g d c l e r . n a a o a n v o i 4 f t s e n e o f i f y o r a d t o n h e s r i n l a " e e d y s a n e l d r e . a m t s d o d w , i t c H o n " h A t c y J o t e o u a i e e n s o w r h r n e s n D " i w e o , d a m " v U n a l e e e d e n r I p b t r i s d r o , e t u a a i a s d c t t c u i o i t c c s e t m i i i e n s n d o I n , s a o n e n o e a , n t n s n n w t e o n i t r t m r o a i r " e a a p o r u s e g n l u g e t a a d o d g r c a l r s m i o i l t d u i d v e o n t i o g i e r n s d n t i b n e o h g e g d i o s e l e , k
d d e a p m o a si g t e io 1 s n 9 s . s o u u c g h h G t t h , i a v E t e p n h s e t t e c h i a e n n b a h r s a e s s a i d s a t t h n h i o s u f c n o e t u h q n u e s iv e a o l l l c w e a g i l a t h t a i o n th n d e s d c m e o f n a e s d n t e i s t e u a t o g io f a n i t n h a s e l t s e r E i c g p a h s s t t e e s i t n o . S a b e n e s d i p n t r f h e r e a s e . s n u D t b r s a . t t a H n a a t n i l a y l l
09;1212019 CONF
P
I
a
DENTIAL
•
Agency to Agency Roque; 19-411
SONYfihi_00331972
EFTA 002046'
EFTA02729682

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 8 of 11
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 8 of 33
Page 8
also prepared affidavits regarding Jane Does 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, which are attached to DE
247.
Memorandum Of Law
20. Plaintiffs' motion is required to be denied as they have failed to meet their burden
showing the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to establish good cause to support a
protective order which would grant the extraordinarily rare relief of preventing a named party
from attending in person the deposition of another named party. Also requiring denial of
Plaintiffs' motion is the fact that it seeks to exclude Epstein from all the depositions of all the
Plaintiffs in actions before this Court. Such relief is unprecedented and attempts to have this
Court look at the Plaintiffs' collectively as opposed to analyzing each ease based on facts versus
broad speculation whether "extraordinary circumstances" exist on a case by case basis. In other
words, the standard is such that the Court would be required to determine whether each Plaintiff
has met her burden, should the Court consider adopting such extraordinary relief. On its face,
the motion does not meet the necessary burden as to Jane Doe 4, or Jane Does 2, 3, 5, 6, or 7.
Pismo ion of Law Requiring the Denial of the Requested Protective Order
Rule 26(cX1XE), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2009), governing protective orders, provides in relevant
part that:
( m a b c p d 1 e o i r a p s ) o n t p r I t t t f a o n e u e e k t r t r c e e e s r G t c e n r e t w d e . i a n v l T i o a e t e h h r p t r i e o o a a a n L r u t g r m d t t t e e A y t m o c o r t o p p i o a i o u n a t r e n d r r t d t t e y p h m a p t e e o o c u o r t r c s s s i c o o t a i o o t n u i n i n n o n . r y f n c t e T f p l , r u r w h i e o n d w h e r m e s e i t t o h c r h a e n e o a o c u f c n t r t h e o r h o n e t r u e o m t i m r a r y f t i a c a c w a f t f n a o i f h y o e c t r , o i n c e o t m h f t , n e o i e s d d e r t h d i p m p s g a i e a s c o t b n o r t o t a r t d h v i i d e c r i e e r n s t a r c g y w m i s a n — s h i u o s o m e a s v r s r n e a e e o , a n e n u s t i t s f h t g f , h a s e o h a u n o r t d s t e p m a e t i p o l n a p a t r e o n y e r g r e s s n m o s o i s a t o o i r o i o t o d l d i v v v n n e e e e f , w r a f t o i h o o t t i h n o l e r r l
undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:
(E) designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is conducted;
Pag3e9 51
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFIDENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331973
EFTA_00204699
EFTA02729683

Case 9:013-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 9 of 11
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 9 of 33
Page 9
• • •
In seeking to prevent the Defendant from being present in the room where the Plaintiffs
arc being deposed, Plaintiffs generally rely on treatise material from Wright & Miller, 8 asicral
Practice & ?Paco:lure Civ.2d, §2041, and cases cited therein. The case of Gaella v. OnaSsis, 487
F.2d 986, at 997 (2d CG. 1973). cited by Plaintiffs, makes clear that the exclusion of a party from
a deposition "should be ordered rarely indeed." Unlike the (Paella case, there is no showing by
ea_sh of the Plaintiffs that there has been any conduct by Epstein, in rightfully defending the
actions filed against him, reflecting "an irrepressible intent to continue ... harassment" of any
Plaintiff or a complete disregard of the judicial process, i.e. prior alleged conduct versus any
action/conduct displayed in this or other cases that would justify extraordinary relief. There is
absolutely no basis in the record to indicate that Epstein will act other than properly and with the
proper decorum at the depositions of the Plaintiffs and abide in all respects with the No-Contact
Order.
Wherefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court enter an order denying Plaintiffs'
Motion for Protective Order, provide that Epstein is permitted to attend the depositions of the
Plaintiffs that have asserted claims against him in the related matters, and for such other and
further relief as this court deems just and proper.
Robert D. C ton, Jr.
Michael). tke
Attorney for Defendant Epstein
0902;2019 Agency to Agency Requet 19-411
CONFPIIDENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331974
EFTA_00204700
EFTA02729684

Case 9:06-cv-80119-KAM Document 305.3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 10 of 11
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 10 of 33
Page 10
Certificat. of Sente
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a truc copy of the foregoing wes hand-delivered to die Clerk
of the Court as required Dy the Local Ru/es of the South= District of Floride and eleceonically
=Wied to all enquise; of record idendfied on the following Service List on this JJig day of
Scptembes, 2009.
Certifient of Service
Jane Doe No. 2 y. Jeffrey Epstein
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRAMORNSON
En.
Stuart S. Mennelstein, Brad Edwuds, Esq.
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Rothstein Roseafeldt Adler
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard
18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1650
a
Suite 2218 Fort Lauderdale, 33301
Miami, FL 33160 Phone: 954-522-3456
305-931-2200 Fax: 954-527-8663
Fax: 305-931-0877 bedwardsare-law.com
[email protected] Counsel for Plaine in Related Case No. 08-
gorowitzresexabuseattornsv.cOM 80893
Courue!f or Plaintifs
In retend Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-
80232, 0840380, 0840381, 08-80993, 08- Paul O. Cassel, Esq.
80994 Pro Hae Vice
332 South 1400 E, Room 101
Richard Horace Wallis, Esq. Salt Lake City, LIT 84112
Richard H. WiUfu, FA 801-585.5202
2290 10e Avenue North 801-585.6833 Fax
Suite 404 casselhalaw,uUth.edu
Lake Worth, FI, 33461 Co-coumelf or Plattuiffane Doe
561-582-7600
Fax: 561-588-8819 Isidro M. Onde, Esq.
Colonel for PlainetR Related Cam No. 08- Garcia Law Firm, P.A.
80811 224 Datura Street, Suite 900
regiS9IMAILLQUI West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561.832.7732
561.832-7137 F
Jack Scarole, En. LiteFigfriedernMa111131
Jack P. Hill, Esq. Counsel for Plaintif in Relatai Case No. 08-
Searcy Denney Scarole Benthert & Shipley, 80469
P.A.
09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011
CONFP lan NTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331975
EFTA_0020470
EFTA02729685

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2009 Page 11 of 11
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 11 of 33
Page11
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Katherine W. Ere% Esq.
561.686-6300 Podhunt Orseck, P.A.
Fax: 561-383-9424 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
[email protected] Miami, FL 33130
ithignainlaaa 305 358-2800
Counself or Platnta C.M.A. Fax: 305 358-2382
tern
kezellEdarodbutst.eom
Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Counsel for Bakst& in Related Cases Nor.
Bruce K Reinhart, PA. 0940591 and 0940656
250 S. Australian Avenue
Suite 1400 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
561-202.6360 250 Australian Avenue South
Fax: 561-828.0983 Suite 1400
gclObrucereinhartlaw.com West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
Counself or Defendant Sarah Kellen 561-659-8300
Fax: 561-835-8691
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. janeso@bellsouthriei
Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
Leopold-Kuvin,
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
[email protected]
ticortolti©ricellaw.com
Respectfully submi
By:
ROBERT CRITTON,112., ESQ.
Flovida No. 224162
MICHAEL J. ME, ESQ.
Florida Bar #617296
=Was:14mm
BURMAN, CRITTON, LIJItER & COLEMAN
303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561/842-2820 Phone
561/515-3148 Fax
(Co-Counself or Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFPITIENTIAL
SDNY_GM_DO331976
EFTA 00204702
EFTA02729686

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 305-5 Entered on FLSD DOCket 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.:
08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2.
Plaintiff
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
Related Cases:
08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 0940469,
09-80581, 09-80656, 0940802, 09-81092.
AFFEDAVIT OF JEFFREY L EPSTEIN
STATE OF FLORIDA SS
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
BEFORE MB, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Jeffrey E. Epstein
having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. My office is located at 250 Australian Avenue South, 14* Floor, went Palm
Beach, Florida. Its location has been well publicized in the news.
2. I met with my attorneys, Robert D. Critton, In and Mark T. battler, at 12:30 p.m.
in preparation for the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 which was to take place beginning at 1:00
p.m. on September 16, 2009.
3. I was aware of the motion for protective order which bad been served in this case
by counsel for lane Doe No. 4 and the Emergency Motion To Strike Plaintiffs Motion For
y
EXHIBIT
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFPITTENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331977
EFTA_00204703
EFTA02729687